Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (MERSEY RAILWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL

UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Civil Servants

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many civil servants in his Department are concerned with approving applications or schemes submitted by local authorities; and what plans he has for reducing them.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): Most members of the Department are concerned in one way or another in handling proposals by local authorities. But, since for many officers this work is only part of the whole job they have to do, it is not practicable to give meaningful figures in reply to the first part of the Question.
The Town and Country Planning Bill now before Parliament is designed to reduce one kind of statutory control, and I shall have the matter in mind when the time comes to consider the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.

Mr. Clegg: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is there not a great chance here, if the policy of the Town and Country Planning Bill is pursued, of cutting Government expenditure?

Mr. Greenwood: I should like to reduce expenditure and the unnecessary use of manpower in every way. The Department is discharging functions laid upon it by Parliament, and the extent of our discretion in that respect is limited.

Land Prices

Mr. Eyre: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to determine the impact of betterment levy on land prices.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): It would be impossible to isolate statistically any one factor, such as the impact of levy, from the many factors which influence the movement of land prices. But my right hon. Friend is taking steps to improve the information about land prices available to him.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister of State aware that land prices have risen by between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. since the introduction of the levy? What does he intend to do to stop this trend?

Mr. MacDermot: No; I discount such wild figures as that which are being bandied about. I am certain that land prices overall have not risen by that amount. Particular cases in high pressure areas may support figures of that kind, but the general trend is nothing like what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Rippon: Is not the Minister of State aware that there is a great deal of evidence now from auction prices all over the country? Do not these show that land prices are at least 20 per cent. above the level which obtained before the Land Commission Act?

Mr. MacDermot: No; I do not agree that the increase is as much as that. If


the evidence comes from auctions I should think it rather tends to show that it is not due to the impact of the levy.

Mr. William Price: Has not the Land Commission been an expensive flop? Will not the Government scrap it and start again with the straight acquisition at fair prices of all development land?

Mr. MacDermot: It is quite unfair to try to judge the Land Commission on its acquisitions to date, for reasons which will become apparent from the Answer to a later Question.

Land Commission

Mr. Eyre: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent the number of staff in the regional offices of the Land Commission has been reduced: and what further reductions are due to take place during the next six months.

Mr. MacDermot: Ninety-two since 1st January, 1968. The extent of further reductions depends on organisation and methods studies now taking place.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister aware that getting rid of staff so recently recruited makes it evident that the Act was a mistake and unworkable? Will he undertake to speed the process of reducing unwarrantable public expenditure?

Mr. MacDermot: That would be a wholly illogical conclusion to draw. It would be very surprising if the staffing arrangements made before the Act proved to be exactly the right figures. It is quite normal in setting up new organisations for some variations in the numbers of staff to take place in the early stages.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Act was passed one of the chief criticisms of hon. Members opposite was that it would take too many staff to operate?

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the work to date of the Midlands Division of the Land Commission based on Birmingham; how many officials are employed there; what building development land they have acquired to date since the establishment of the Commission; and, having regard to diminished operations

of the Commission, what attenuation of duties in the Midlands he now proposes for the Commission.

Mr. MacDermot: The Commission is at present negotiating for the acquisition of 391 acres in the West Midlands Region. None of the negotiations has yet reached completion. The Commission is investigating a further 2,900 acres. The present staff of the region is 124. The Commission's operations are not diminishing.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not an accepted fact that the purpose of the Commission is to acquire building development land first, and to collect the betterment levy second? As both those purposes are unfulfilled—no progress has been made in the Midlands whatever—and in view of the derisory figures given by the right hon. Gentleman today, why does not he wind up the outfit—write it off as an expensive flop, in the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price)?

Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait for the answers to later Questions which deal with the subject matter of his supplementary question.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the staff of the Land Commission at 6th April, 1968; what is the total cost of such staff per annum, including salaries, pensions, accommodation and perquisites; and, having regard to the diminishing work of the Commission in its second year of operation, what economies in costs for the Land Commission he proposes.

Mr. MacDermot: 1,389, Sir. In 1967–68 total costs were £3,334,000—including £1,140,000 for services provided by other Departments. These cost figures are provisional until the Accounts are published. Assessed pension liability would add approximately £317,000. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to a Question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) concerning staff reductions. Other economies are being made where appropriate.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of those extravagant


figures, which represent no progress whatever? Would not he now join the Tory philosophy and say that this outfit will be disbanded at an early date as a total flop?

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions are becoming a little repetitious. The answer is "No".

Mr. Rippon: Is the Minister aware that the Treasury has advised his Department that it should send to the Land Commission only those people who are near retirement age? Will he, therefore, try to speed up some of the reductions in staff and bear in mind that we on this side of the House intend to repeal the Act and abolish the Commission at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. MacDermot: I am not aware of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman asserted.

Mr. Farr: rose——

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory answers, I beg leave to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at a very early date. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

Birmingham (Green Belt)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to be in a position to make a statement about the confirmation of the green belt to the south of Birmingham.

Mr. MacDermot: I cannot add to my previous Answers to the hon. Member on this subject.

Mr. Dance: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman must have some idea when we are to get this information? In view of the rapid progress of the development of the new town of Redditch, is it not essential to have a permanent breathing line between Redditch and the City of Birmingham?

Mr. MacDermot: I am not sure what information the hon. Gentleman is referring to. The study being made by the Standing Conference of the long-term pattern of development around conurbations is bound to take a considerable time—about two years. It would be

wrong to try to pronounce upon the green belt and confirm it in advance of that study.

Mr. Speed: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, with the continued erosion of the green belt around Birmingham by both overspill and new installations of the nationalised industries, this problem will eventually solve itself, because there will be no green belt to confirm?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not agree. I am anxious that as much as possible of the unspoiled area should be kept free from development, but the best means for doing this will have to be considered in the light of the study.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Will the Minister of State bear in mind, when this inquiry is being made, the acute need of Birmingham's overcrowded population with its great waiting list for more houses and the demand of all political parties in Birmingham for more land in this area?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, I am very well aware of that, and it is for that reason that the Standing Conference has set up this study to find what is the best way from a planning point of view in which that need can be met.

Royal Commission on Local Government

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he now expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Towards the end of this year, 1968, Sir.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will it be in time to introduce the major reform of local government finance which the Labour Party promised in its election manifesto, before a General Election, or is this to be another broken promise?

Mr. Skeffington: The Government have always made it absolutely clear, since and even before the setting up of the Royal Commission, that it would be impossible to embark upon a wide-scale alteration in local government finance


until the structure had been established. That is common sense, and I should have thought that it would have been acceptable to everybody.

Local Government Revenue (Sales Tax)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what study he has made of the possibility of a sales tax to supplement rates as a means of collecting local government revenue.

Mr. Skeffington: A local sales tax was among the possible new sources of local revenue studied before the Government concluded that fundamental changes in local finance were not practicable within the existing local government structure. This and other possibilities will be considered again in the light of what emerges from the Royal Commissions on Local Government.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the last election, the Labour Party said that the most urgent area of tax reform was the rating system? When are the Government to make this reform?

Mr. Skeffington: The Government are absolutely clear that this is a reform which should have been tackled many years ago. The present Government have taken the first step of setting up a comprehensive review of the whole structure of local government, which will enable a reform of finance to be made.

Mr. Cant: Will my hon. Friend invite the hon. Gentleman to attend meetings of the Finance Bill Committee to see how bitterly opposed his hon. Friends are to any increase in indirect taxation?

Parish Councils (Expenditure)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek to amend the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963, in order to give parish councils greater freedom to determine their own expenditure.

Mr. Skeffington: The freedom of parish councils to spend money is bound up with their rôle and their relationship to other local authorities. Evidence on these matters has been given by the National Association of Parish Councils to the Royal Commission on English Local Government. I think that we ought now to wait

for the report before forming an opinion on changes.

Mr. Gardner: Is my hon. Friend aware that, with my current rate demand, there is a note which tells me that the rural district council is backing Britain by stopping street cleaning? Is he aware that many parish councils would willingly undertake to pay for this work themselves if the law allowed? Irrespective of the Report of the Royal Commission, will he not allow a little local civic initiative?

Mr. Skeffington: My Department and I are always anxious to encourage enterprising parish councils, many of which do a magnificent job, but a change in the law must await the Report of the Royal Commission.

Local Authority Members (Privilege)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government arising out of a recent case where a member of Whitworth Urban District Council in Lancashire was found by the courts not to have even qualified privilege in respect of a speech by him in Council, if he will review the whole question of the privilege of councillors, with a view to amending the law; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Skeffington: The general rules relating to qualified privilege apply to members of local authorities when speaking at council meetings and this defence is available to them if the facts of the case support it. This has long been the recognised position and my right hon. Friend is not persuaded that a review of the situation is needed.

Mr. Barnett: Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave danger that this case presents to thousands of local councillors—able and conscientious councillors like this—who are facing costs of something like £5,000? Is he aware that they cannot appeal against the verdict, because they cannot afford further costs? Will he look into the matter again and reconsider his Answer?

Mr. Skeffington: This matter has been very carefully looked at. It is a fact that in the normal course of the law a councillor can speak so long as he is speaking on matters which are in the course of his duties and so long as he does so in good faith. Then these defences are open to


him. It would be wrong for me to comment on an individual case, but if my hon. Friend has any further point I would be glad to look at it. Generally speaking, we are not dissuaded that the law is wrong or unfair as at present stated.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the whole law of defamation needs looking at? Is he aware that it is very unsatisfactory, and that there is a strong feeling in the legal profession, and certainly among newspaper editors, that it is not operating fairly or satisfactorily? Will he have a look at the whole law on this subject?

Mr. Skeffington: My hon. Friend should direct his question elsewhere.

Land Commission (Betterment Levy)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much betterment levy has so far been collected by the Land Commission; and what was the cost of collecting the levy.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the total sum so far collected by the Land Commission in betterment levy; and how many acres of land have been acquired.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the current programme of the Land Commission for the acquisition and disposal of land.

Mr. MacDermot: The levy collected in 1967–68 was £463,300 and the total up to 24th April was £747,300. The rate of collection has now risen to about £3·5 million a year, and the expected yield in 1968–69 is £8·3 million. The annual cost of assessment and collection is about £2·3 million.
The Land Commission is at present negotiating for the acquisition of 76 sites totalling 3,245 acres at an estimated cost price of £11·1 million. Two small sites, amounting to 1¾ acres have vested in the Commission. The Commission is investigating additional sites extending to over 23,000 acres.

Mr. Costain: Are not those figures fantastic? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that if this money had been collected by the Inland Revenue it would cost only 3·2d. per cent.? Is it

not time that this thing was abolished completely? It is wasted public expenditure.

Mr. MacDermot: Not at all. The reason why the collection of levy at present is at a relatively low rate is because of the transition provisions, which exempt builders' stocks. This has been explained many times previously.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not a fact that there is a requirement on the right hon. Gentleman's Department, the same as all other Departments, to save money at this time? If this is so, how can he possibly come to that Box and defend this farcical situation?

Mr. MacDermot: As is made clear from my Answer, when the hon. Gentleman studies it, we are gaining money through the collection of levies.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rippon—Mr. Willey.

Mr. Willey: Will my hon. and learned Friend see that the acquisition and disposal programme of the Land Commission is considerably stepped up?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes. Again I think that the figures I have given show that this is happening.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Rippon: On a point of order. I understood that you had called me to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: I am awfully sorry, but I must stick to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Local Authority Housing Programmes (Increased Costs)

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has now made of the increased cost to local authorities in the present financial year of their housing programmes due to the increase in the Selective Employment Tax, in cost of materials due to devaluation and to increased interest rates since 1st November, 1967.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The increase in materials added about 1 per cent. to the cost of the average dwelling and the rise in the Bank Rate may have added a further ¼per cent. Selective Employment Tax will not be increased until September and the effect for this financial year will be less than 1 per cent. These increases in costs need not increase tender prices to the same extent.

Mr. Clegg: Does not this mean that ratepayers and council tenants will suffer by paying more due to the incompetence of the Government's economic policy?

Mr. MacColl: No. If they are paying more, it is because of the tremendous success of the Government's housing policy.

Mr. Graham Page: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his figures are not accepted by practical builders throughout the trade and that the increase is generally accepted to be 4 per cent.?

Mr. MacColl: That is a considerable exaggeration. The figures I gave were in answer to the Question. They do not deal with the other causes of increases in cost.

Three-bedroomed Houses (Increased Cost)

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his estimate of the percentage increase in the cost of a three-bedroomed house during 1968.

Mr. MacColl: The costs which builders have to take into account in fixing tender or sale prices will rise on account of the Budget by about 1½ per cent. over the year. But this increase need not give rise to the same increase in tender or sale prices.

Mr. Murton: Between October, 1964, and early 1967 did not the cost of housing rise by 25 per cent.? Is not this further increase caused by rising land prices, devaluation and higher interest rates?

Mr. MacColl: These increases need not necessary be reflected in the increases in tenders because of the possibilities of increasing productivity and the advantages of fixed-price contracts.

Local Authority Houses

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the average value of the output per operative employed by a private contractor on the construction of new council houses during 1967; and what was the comparable figure for an operative employed by a local authority direct labour department.

Mr. MacColl: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Public Building and Works on 29th April to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain).—[Vol. 763, c. 775–6.]

Mr. Murton: Is it not a fact that direct labour building costs have proved to be 30 per cent. higher than those of comparable private contractors? Should not the Minister rescind his predecessor's original instruction, and allow one in three tenders to be put out to private contractors?

Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. The trouble about the one-in-three rule was that it was far too rigid to enable direct labour forces to take advantage of large-scale contracts and obtain economies from large-scale enterprises.

Mr. Rippon: How can the hon. Gentleman possibly say that a provision to put one in three out is too rigid? Surely that gives sufficient flexibility to any local authority? It was in operation for years. Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider this?

Mr. MacColl: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than anyone, the important thing is to get a good run so that one can obtain economies, particularly from industrialised building. That should apply equally to direct labour forces as to other tenders.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Is it not a fact that it is perfectly open to local authorities to put these matters out to tender if they desire?

Mr. MacColl: Yes, Sir.

Rents

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a statement on the position of


proposed council rent increases which were referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a statement on the Government's proposals for phasing rent increases outlined in Command Paper No. 3590.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he has taken or intends to take, to reduce council rents following recent increases.

Mr. Greenwood: I explained the Government's proposals for dealing with increases in local authority rents in the reply which I gave to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 25th April. The Government's proposals on increases in private rents were outlined in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3590).—[Vol. 763, c. 486–493.]

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that large numbers of G.L.C. tenants are grateful that they are being saved by the Government from the proposed outrageous Tory rent increases? Is not it also important that local authorities should not feel encouraged to think that they must put 7s. 6d. on the rent?

Mr. Greenwood: I have sent a circular to local authorities urging on them the need to keep rents to the very minimum and not to regard 7s. 6d. as an ordinary level of increase. I hope that every local authority will do its utmost to keep well below that level. Some local authorities need not raise rents at all.

Mr. Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend said what the limits will be for increases in private rents? Does not he agree that some aspects of the policy set out in the White Paper, "Old Houses Into New Homes", could have very serious implications for many low-income families?

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend's second point looks rather further ahead than the Question on the Order Paper. On the question of our immediate proposals about private rents, I hope that my hon. Friends will await the legislation which is due very soon.

Mr. Allason: In view of the statutory duty to balance the housing revenue account, has the Minister any proposals for a deferment of the capital repayment for authorities with large building programmes, as otherwise they cannot make both ends meet?

Mr. Greenwood: There are many ways in which local authorites can make a contribution to keeping down rents. I suggested some of them when I made my statement in the House on 25th April. I shall look very carefully at every case which comes before me and decide what is reasonable for the local authority in all the local circumstances obtaining.

Mr. Moyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in view of all the Government have done for the ratepayers, which in my borough of Lewisham has led to a reduction in the rates of 5d. in the £, if he makes up his mind to stand no nonsense from the Tory G.L.C. he will have my enthusiastic support and that of many of my hon. Friend's?

Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful for that somewhat qualified support. Perhaps I should remind the House that it is not only in respect of rates that we have given great help. We have also given great help to council tenants through the generous subsidies provided in the 1967 Act.

Mr. Rippon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that rates have been rising far more rapidly over the past four years than ever before, and that if there is to be any sort of limitation on rent increases it would be far better done on a percentage basis rather than with an arbitrary fixed limit?

Mr. Greenwood: I completely disagree with the suggestion in the latter half of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. He is completely wrong about increases in rates.

Mortgage Interest Rates

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations he has received about the current mortgage interest rate; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what


recent discussions he has had with building societies regarding interest rates; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what discussions he has had with building societies about a change in mortgage rates; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association about their decision to increase the interest rate to 7⅜ per cent.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the increase in mortgage interest rates announced by the building societies on Saturday, 20th April.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take in relation to the proposal of the building societies to increase the rate of interest for home loans by ½ per cent.

Mr. Greenwood: I maintain continuing contact with the Building Societies' Association about the availability of finance for house purchase. Building societies need to pay interest rates to investors which will attract sufficient funds to meet the demand for mortgages for house purchase. This in turn affects the rate which societies charge for mortgages. There has been a very sharp fall in the amount of money available for lending, and the recent recommendation of the Building Societies' Association for increases in borrowing and lending rates was made because they considered this necessary to avert a mortgage famine. This is a matter for the judgment of the Association. I am glad to note that some societies have found it possible to postpone the raising of the mortgage rate to existing borrowers. I am sure that societies will wherever possible give existing borrowers the option of extending the mortgage period instead of increasing monthly repayments.

Mr. Boardman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as a result of these very high interest rates, the average borrower, after tax relief, is having to pay 10s. per week more than in October, 1964, or, if his term has

been extended, the liability may be extended by up to seven years? How does he reconcile these facts with his radio broadcast last night boasting—[Interruption.]—of the Government's record on housing?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and answers are getting rather long.

Mr. Greenwood: I did not catch the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. But hon. Members opposite will have to make up their minds whether they want money to be available for private house purchase or not. If they do, then they must accept also that attractive terms must be offered in order to bring money into the building societies.

Mr. Gardner: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a full-scale investigation into the operations of building societies? In the meantime, will not he suggest to them that, in return for their holding down interest rates, the Government will underwrite the difference between the chosen rate and the rate at which they borrow?

Mr. Greenwood: I cannot give the assurance sought by my hon. Friend in the latter part of that supplementary question. As to the first part, I know of no evidence to suggest that the sort of inquiry he has in mind would serve any useful purpose. The National Board for Prices and Incomes investigated the building societies in autumn, 1966, and since then they have had their own Hardie Committee investigating the situation. As far as I know, the situation is satisfactory so far as the problems considered by the Board and the Hardie Committee are concerned.

Mr. William Price: What, in the longer term, does my right hon. Friend regard as an acceptable level of interest rates?

Mr. Greenwood: The lowest possible.

Mr. Murray: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the ½ per cent. rise is greater than the 3½ per cent. norm for incomes? Will he suggest to the building societies that they look at their investment policy? Will he also suggest to them that, after they have raised interest rates, it does not do their public image any good to lunch at the Dorchester on our money?

Mr. Greenwood: I am certain that the building societies are well aware of the need to keep their investment policy under constant review. I remind the House that, despite the difficulties they have been going through, their lending has been at a very high figure in the last three months.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the decision of the building societies was unavoidable in view of the generally high interests rates prevailing and the lack of confidence in fixed interest securities engendered by Government policy over the last three years? Will he enter into discussions with the building societies so that, over the long term, policies can be evolved whereby borrowers do not suffer such fluctuations, which put them into great difficulties?

Mr. Greenwood: I maintain constant discussion with the Building Societies' Association and this is one of the points which I shall discuss with it at the appopriate moment. In relation to interest rates, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman spoiled an otherwise excellent supplementary question by attributing some of the responsibility to the Government. To some extent, the situation is due to international monetary forces beyond the control of any national Government.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it does not really meet the case to say that the period of repayment can be prolonged, since where there is a substantial increase in interest charges the principal sum in the end can be greater than the amount originally borrowed? The difference will have to be found from somewhere. Could this not be phased like rent increases so that a maximum increase of, say, 7s. 6d., was charged?

Mr. Greenwood: That would not be practicable. Because of the proposal to spread out repayments many people will get more concessions through Income Tax relief and consequently any damaging effect will to some extent be offset.

Mr. Marten: Is not the extension of repayment disreputable economic conduct? Surely, at the end of the day, the borrower who hopes to retire on pension will have a very substantial amount of

capital to repay purely as a result of the Government's high interest policy?

Mr. Greenwood: That is not entirely due to the Government's short-term high interest policy. I explained as much to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). But it is important that, at a time of particular pressure on salaries and incomes generally, it should be the policy of the Government to keep down all increases of this kind. If it means phasing repayments over a longer period, that will relax pressure in the immediate future.

Option Mortgage Scheme

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what are the latest figures for the number of people who have taken advantage of the option mortgage scheme, expressed as a percentage of existing and new borrowers.

Mr. MacColl: According to the latest information from the 10 largest building societies, over 10 per cent. of their new borrowers are choosing option mortgages; about 4 per cent. of the existing borrowers who had to make their decision by 31st December, 1967, changed to option mortgages.

Mr. Boardman: Do not these figures mean that 96 per cent. of all existing borrowers and 90 per cent. of all new borrowers see no advantage in the option mortgage scheme and that even those who have taken it up are, due to high prices and interest rates, paying significantly more than in October, 1964?

Mr. MacColl: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's premise. The object of the scheme was to make available home ownership to people of moderate incomes, particularly young families, who could not otherwise take advantage of loans. The scheme has worked in this very important sector.

Mr. Barnett: Why will my right hon. Friend not extend the date by which mortgage payers with existing mortgages can opt for the option mortgage scheme?

Mr. MacColl: There are difficulties about varying the dates. For administrative reasons, it has not proved possible


to do this in all cases, except in those where there is hardship.

Mr. Graham Page: But why alter the date? This is a once-for-all decision. The Government are changing the rules in the middle of the game by Clause 14 of the Finance Bill in relation to child allowances. Does not this put those who have opted in a worse position? Is not this cheating them?

Mr. MacColl: When the scheme was being prepared, we went carefully into the possibilities of giving opportunities to change and it was found that administrative difficulties—not ours but those of the lenders, who have to operate the scheme—made it very difficult to do.

House Purchase (Mortgages)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the current availability of mortgages for house purchase.

Mr. Greenwood: In the first quarter of this year, building societies advanced £428 million for house purchase and at the end of March their commitments for advances amounted to nearly £450 million. The funds available for lending have been affected by the low net inflow of money in the same quarter and there are reports that some societies are at present being compelled to limit the number of their new mortgage commitments but I hope that the recent change in the investment rate will restore the position and enable societies to continue to make loans freely.

Mr. Marten: By what date does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the position will be restored? What steps is he taking in the long term to secure mortgage finance for borrowers?

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed that some of the building societies have not found it necessary to increase interest rates. They have found it possible to defer a decision. This points to the fact that they are confident that the inflow of money will improve over the next few months. That is the confident expectation of the Government as well.

Mr. Dickens: In the long term, in an age of rapidly appreciating property values, should we not ensure that build-

ing societies and depositors get some advantage from this appreciation by giving societies equity shares in the mortgages they advance?

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend has a Question later about that subject.

Immigrants (Assistance to Local Authorities)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he now has to give additional help to those local authorities with a large immigrant population in order to relieve overcrowding.

Mr. MacColl: Special priority has already been given to authorities with severe housing problems, many of these being areas with large immigrant populations; as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced, further consideration is being given to the needs of these areas, and this will extend to both the provision of new houses and to the improvement of conditions in older housing areas.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that all of us in the West Midlands very much welcome the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Birmingham on Sunday? It gave the lie to those supporters of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who claim that the Government have no concern for the people. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend see that some urgency is given to the problem of providing houses for both the local population and immigrant families? To this end—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—will he modernise the National Building Agency so that we can get prefabricated system-built flats and houses as speedily as possible?

Mr. Speaker: Every long supplementary question means one Question fewer can be put.

Mrs. Short: Interruptions make them longer.

Mr. MacColl: Wolverhampton is a priority area and we are not holding up its housing programme in any way. In the current year, it has a programme of 1,603 new houses as compared with 797 approvals last year. We are most anxious that it should build to full capacity.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether such additional help to these local authorities will mean a reduction in help to other local authorities without this problem, but whose overcrowding needs are just as acute?

Mr. MacColl: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Will my hon. Friend give any figures which he has to show how much has already been given by the Government to local authorities, particularly in the London area?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend gave some figures in his speech. If my hon. Friend would like some more figures, perhaps he will write to me and I shall be happy to help him.

Sir G. Nabarro: If the Prime Minister is to be called in aid, will not the hon. Gentleman complete the quotation and point out that the Prime Minister said quite definitely that any additional help given to areas of heavy immigration would have to be at the expense of normal local authority areas and out of existing resources? Will he make it clear that Wolverhampton will not be allowed to build at the expense of Worcestershire?

Mr. MacColl: The Government's policy has always been directed to concentrating on priority areas in housing. The West Midlands area qualifies as such and the Government subsidy, which has already been approved, will enable Wolverhampton to extend its building programme.

Mr. Rippon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while we can read what the Prime Minister said, once again nobody knows what he meant? Will he, therefore, issue some guidance to local authorities about what the Government now propose and who is to pay for it?

Mr. MacColl: There is no problem about what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government means about the housing programme. He is determined to concentrate on those areas where houses are most needed and not try to bolster up his housing completions by building houses in areas of low priority.

Council Houses (Bathrooms)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek powers to amend the standard grant procedure to enable tenants on council housing estates to be provided with bathrooms.

Mr. MacColl: Under the existing standard grant procedure local authorities already receive Exchequer contributions towards installing the basic amenities, including a bath in a bathroom, in any of their older houses which lack them.

Mrs. Butler: Will my hon. Friend have discussions with local authorities to see whether more effective use can be made of these procedures so that council tenants, such as those on the Greater London Council White Hart Lane Estate, may be provided with baths before they are too senile to use them?

Mr. MacColl: I am sure that the result of my right hon. Friend's White Paper will be to make all local authorities consider their programmes for improving older houses. On the general problem, although I do not want to criticise the Greater London Council's priorities in this matter, I agree that local authorities should give the lead in the way in which they modernise their properties.

Rent Act, 1965 (Section 11)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make an order, under Section 11 of the Rent, Act, 1965, bringing all controlled tenancies within the rent regulation system.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he intends to implement Section 11 of the Rent Act, 1965.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has no proposals for making an order under Section 11 of the Rent Act, 1965.

Mr. Longden: The hon. Gentleman must be aware by now that there is great injustice to people who have invested small savings in real property rather than stocks and shares, and that the rents that they are receiving make it quite impossible for them to keep their properties in


decent repair? When will he do something about it?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has explained on many occasions that he wishes to see more of the working of the Rent Act before he introduces Section 11.

Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that in some parts of the country rent officers are becoming redundant through lack of work? Is there not a case in those special areas, for bringing more rent-controlled properties within the scope of the 1965 Act, thus helping those small landlords, who may not be able to muster many votes in the country, but who deserve to be treated with equity and justice by this House?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has often said that he is very anxious to see more use made of the Rent Act by the tenants and the landlords, who would both benefit from it. There will be very great difficulties and anomalies in bringing Section 11 in force in certain areas and not others.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that to do as the hon. Member has suggested would mean trebling the rents in London, Birmingham, and some other areas? Is that not a very odd way of keeping down the cost of living?

Mr. Longden: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY AND CABINET OFFICE

Mr. David Howell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now take steps to merge the management side of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office to create a Prime Minister's Department to assist him in discharging his central coordinating responsibilities.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir. It would, I think, be a mistake to consider suggestions of this kind until we have the Report of Lord Fulton's Committee on the Civil Service.

Mr. Howell: Can the Prime Minister say at what date the Fulton Committee's Report will be published? Would it not

be a great improvement if the good work of the management services side of the Treasury was transferred to the Prime Minister's Department, so that the drive for efficiency in Government should have the full backing of the Prime Minister's authority, such as it is?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the permanent head of the Civil Service reports jointly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and myself. On the first part of his Question, I understand that the Committee is making very good progress and I certainly hope that we would have the Report before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess. I would, of course, expect to make a statement to the House at that time.

Mr. Lubbock: Is this not a question on which the advice of British management consultants might be taken, with very great benefit to the Government?

The Prime Minister: I am not in close touch with Lord Fulton, for obvious reasons, but we shall see when we have the Report whether there has been any use of British management consultants.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what further discussions he is engaged in with other world leaders to secure a settlement to the war in Vietnam.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding the progress of negotiations for a peace settlement in Vietnam.

The Prime Minister: The House will. I know, welcome, as I do, the agreement of the United States and North Vietnam to send their representatives to meet in Paris. It is, I am sure, the hope of all of us that these first contacts will be fruitful and lead to a just and honourable peace in Vietnam.

Mr. Winnick: Would the Prime Minister agree that, while we all hope that the preliminary talks will be fruitful, the central issue is still the future of South Vietnam, where certainly the N.L.F. has a great deal of support? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that many people who, like myself, oppose the American


action in Vietnam and the Saigon Government, deeply deplore the killing of unarmed civilian journalists by the Vietcong, and that we express our sympathies to their relatives?

The Prime Minister: I am with my hon. Friend on the latter point. Throughout all the Questions that I have had to answer on Vietnam for well over three years now I have said that so long as this fighting continues there will be the most grotesque atrocities. In addition to the one mentioned by my hon. Friend, there was clear evidence recently of a mass execution carried out by the Vietcong. That is why we must all hope that, now that the two sides are in contact, we shall be able to get a peace that will end fighting and all these atrocities.

Mr. Molloy: Could the Prime Minister say whether the Government are keeping in close touch with both sides at this very important and tense moment in order to assist in any way, and allow these talks to proceed, so that ultimately peace might be achieved?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have kept in close touch throughout with all with whom we can keep in close touch on this matter. As I said in answer to a supplementary question a week or two ago, while it must be for the parties to declare how they wish to pursue this matter, the co-Chairmen stand ready to provide any facilities that both parties feel would help to secure the right sort of peace.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that after the Panmunjon peace talks started in Korea the United States suffered 65,000 casualties? Would he not agree that it is to be hoped that quicker progress will be made in the peace talks in Paris and we shall not suffer such casualties on either side?

The Prime Minister: It has been my hope, and I know that the whole House shares it, that at the earliest possible moment this issue will be transferred from the battlefield to the conference chamber. The fact that now the conference is planned and agreed upon makes one naturally hope that it will also be the signal for a cease-fire.

Mr. Whitaker: While regretting that the N.L.F. has launched a new offensive on the eve of the peace talks, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend, with our co-Chairman, will propose an immediate cease-fire during the peace talks instead of what happened in Korea?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have been in continuous touch with the Premier of the Soviet Union on these matters over a long period of time, and I am still in touch; but it is the attitude of our fellow co-Chairman, and has been throughout, that they would not feel able to join in any initiative unless it was desired by both main parties to the dispute.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Prime Minister what further discussions he will have with the Soviet Ambassador on the re-convening of the Geneva Conference.

The Prime Minister: As to the reconvening of the Geneva Conference. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a supplementary question by the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) on 9th April, when I described the attitude of our Soviet co-Chairman to these matters.
As to my hon. Friend's reference to the Soviet Ambassador, he may rest assured that all the most appropriate and efficient means of communication between the two Governments are in use and allow for speedy consultation whenever this is necessary.

Mr. Hamling: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he would agree that a further initiative, together with the Soviet Ambassador, would materially aid the discussions which are now going on over peace?

The Prime Minister: As I have explained to the House on a number of occasions, the Soviet Premier and I have considered whether the Geneva Conference should be reconvened. There are some arguments for it and many against it. But both of us have taken the view—this is very much their attitude—that when the parties are in contact, as they now are, should they desire an initiative by the co-Chairmen, either in the Geneva context or any other, we will be ready to respond.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)

Mr. Walters: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord President of the Council at Basildon on Friday, 29th March about economic policy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: I have already dealt at length with this Question but at the risk of further wearying the House, I will answer it again. "Yes, Sir".

Mr. Walters: Does the Prime Minister recall that his right hon. Friend first said that the Government had lost the confidence of the country and then that they could operate their economic policy successfully only if they had the confidence of the country? Has the Prime Minister any evidence that the Government are regaining this confidence? Does he realise that if he has he is unique?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend's speech, which is available in full to right hon. and hon. Members, made it clear, as is clear to all of us, that when these extremely unpopular decisions have to be taken to get the economy right, that inevitably leads to electoral unpopularity. What we need, and what any Government need, is the support of the country in carrying through measures which are widely recognised as necessary, including the one to which my right hon. Friend drew attention in his speech—the prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Maudling: Does the Prime Minister accept his right hon. Friend's view that a General Election now would settle nothing except the fate of the Labour Party? Can he think of a better way of restoring the economy?

The Prime Minister: I am always willing to receive advice on this question, but not from a former member of a Government which, for the first time in a hundred years, despite the obvious unpopularity of that Government only six months before, went to the very last minute of statutory time before going to the country, and against the advice of the right hon. Gentleman himself who knew what the economic situation was.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a General Election now would

certainly cause considerable unsettlement and disturbance on the Opposition Front Bench?

The Prime Minister: There is some evidence of that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are temporarily luxuriating in public opinion polls, which they normally discount, will have seen that, in the latest public opinion poll, the declared view of the country was that, as between the Conservative Party led by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Labour Party led by myself, we have a two point advantage.

Sir G. Nabarro: Talking of last minutes, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he is deferring month after month, evidently until next autumn—the last minute—the holding of by-elections in four seats vacated by Labour Members?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The time lag in these cases is considerably less than some of the more historic occasions when his party was in power.

Mr. Murray: In view of the time wasted by this sort of Question, may I suggest that my right hon. Friend asks members of the Government to state, before they made speeches, that they are stating the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: That raises some extremely interesting questions of a constitutional character which I should like to consider. I do not think it would necessarily rule out the Questions. I agree that repetitive Questions are a waste of the time of the House, but I am not sure that all the supplementary questions are.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he proposes a further series of visits to the countries of the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans for this at present, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House that if the present application to join the Common Market were to plough into the sands he would


not discount the examination of a wider economic grouping? As it clearly has ploughed into the sands, and the decision of the Prime Minister is an indication of his lack of determination to pursue this, is not this the moment to start examining the alternative of a wider economic grouping?

The Prime Minister: I have dealt with that question in answer to supplementary questions by the hon. Member and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I think that a more correct description of the present situation is not so much a ploughing into the sands as running into a road block. I think we all know where that road block comes from, but it does not affect what is the right policy for this country.

Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister say what is the position about the Benelux proposals at the moment?

The Prime Minister.: Yes. We fully support the Benelux proposals. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the last two meetings of the Council of Ministers of the Six they were on the agenda, but other issues came up and now we have to wait for the next meeting in June. However, we have made it clear that we support those proposals.
Also, we would be prepared to respond to any move by the Six as a whole, not by one or two countries of the Six, for discussions on interim solutions. They must come with the authority of the Six as a whole.

Mr. Turton: The Prime Minister made it clear in his earlier reply about the A.F.T.A. project that his examination preceded his change of mind on applications for entry. Since then the Atlantic Trade Study has published a number of research reports. Will he now reconsider the matter in the light of those documents?

The Prime Minister: I think that some valuable work is being done in a number of directions on these alternatives. I have said on a number of occasions that we examined this before the announcement on 2nd May last year. We see no reason to change the decision of Her Majesty's Government about what is right for Britain.

Mr. Moyle: Does my right hon. Friend think that we will ever join the Common

Market if the countries of the Common Market feel that we have no alternative but to join?

The Prime Minister: That is a rather involved question, but a good one. I have on previous occasions referred to the possible weakness of posture of those who seem too anxious to get in at any price. We stated last year what we felt had to be overcome before we could get into the Common Market. The attitude of most of our colleagues in most of the Common Market countries depends on what they think is right for themselves and for Europe as well as for Britain. We are not there in the attitude of suppliants. We are there in the attitude of those who feel they know what is right, as many of the others do, for Europe as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Hamling: asked the Prime Minister what reports have been submitted to him on the organisation of resistance within Rhodesia to the illegal régime.

The Prime Minister: I receive regular reports on this and other aspects of the Rhodesian situation but my hon. Friend will not expect me to discuss the sources of information on events in Rhodesia which are available to me.

Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend accept the view that this side of the House would strongly support the Government in aiding such illegal organisations, even though we understand that details ought not to be published?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by "illegal". What is illegal is the régime, and we do not support that. My hon. Friend, who voted in the Division Lobby not long ago, will recognise that Mr. Smith has now declared his position. He has stated in terms that he totally rejects any idea of majority rule, which means he rejects now—and he made clear he has always rejected—the six principles on which my predecessor and I have both negotiated with him.

Mr. Hastings: Does the Prime Minister agree that the recruiting, training, and arming of the terrorists in Zambia and the Zambesi Valley are being carried out by the Soviet Union, Communist China,


Algeria, and Cuba? Does the Prime Minister further agree that those Powers are not exactly among our best friends?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember that during a recent debate on Rhodesia I warned hon. Members who thought that this was a parochial matter to recognise that that is exactly what would happen. Their refusal to recognise world concern and African concern in the matter was a prescription for putting the whole of Southern Africa into the hands of internationally organised chaos.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Shinwell, to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Shinwell: Question No. 7.

Mr. Speaker: I called the right hon. Member to ask a supplementary on Question No. Q6. We had passed the time to begin other Questions.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker, are you aware that for several months I have been putting down Questions to the Prime Minister, and have tried to keep within the rules of the modern procedure of the House, but it always happens, for some reason or other, that my Questions are not answered orally? I am accumulating a supply of supplementary questions, and there ought to be some occasion on which I am able to ask them.

Mr. Speaker: I am in complete sympathy with the right hon. Member. This is a problem which he shares with many other hon. Members. The arranging of Questions to the Prime Minister is a matter of pure chance. Some hon. Members seem to be luckier than others.

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, would not it help my right hon. Friend and others who want to get Questions down if there was some machinery by which, when a Question is put down for the eleventh or more time, having been answered ten times, it is taken off the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: That is another matter altogether.

Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that it is the printer of the Order Paper who determines the order of the Questions?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I had better explain the system a little more clearly. Every day hon. Members submit Questions to the Table Office, usually on the very first day on which they are entitled to do so. Those put in on that day are collected, looked at by the Table Office, and sent to the printer. The order in which they appear on the Order Paper is purely a matter of chance. They are taken in a batch to the printer, and he takes them out by chance as they come.

Mr. Tapsell: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, will you consider this matter further, bearing in mind the great political importance which is now attached to the Questions which the Prime Minister is able to reach, and also the fact that it is unquestionably the case that when an hon. Member puts down two Questions to the Prime Minister they are grouped, and therefore it cannot be pure chance? The whole system of leaving this degree of influence to a printing office is not very satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: I share the anxiety which every hon. Member feels about his desire to get his Question in a favourable position on the Order Paper. We put to the Committee on Procedure the suggestion of time-stamping Questions as they came in, but that was rejected. Obviously I must consider what the House is saying at the moment.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I think that the matter ought to be looked into very carefully. I have always had the impression from my experience in the House over a long period that Questions put down first appeared first on the Order Paper. It may be that there are reasons why this is not so. I think that perhaps the matter ought to be considered carefully.

Mr. Speaker: I should be grateful if the Services Committee would look into this. It has done so before.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

3.34 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an anti-discrimination board to examine and remove discrimination against women in employment, education, social and public life; and to provide for equal pay for work of equal value.
I think that everybody now knows that this year we are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the granting of votes to women, though probably only women would celebrate so enthusiastically the receipt of something the giving of which did not cost anybody anything! Over the last fifty years women have been struggling to obtain something much more tangible even than the vote. They have experienced considerable difficulties and there has been a failure by society to appreciate the full value of women in the community.
Women ale still primarily considered as wives and mothers although today more than 8 million of them are employed outside the home. We know from a recent report that half these 8 million women are earning less than 5s. an hour. Although that may seem to be just another statistic, recently I received a letter from a correspondent in which she said:
My sister who is unmarried has worked for a certain firm for the past 41 years, her only job since she left school except for her service in the A.T.S.… She was showing me her wage slip for a months' salary which is as follows: £43 10s. 9d. per month, out of this she receives £30 7s. 6d. net. After stoppages this is about £7 a week. Out of this her rent, coal, electric, bus fares and insurance work out at £5 per week leaving her a meager £2 per week for food, clothes and replacements for her home.… She needs a new mattress for her bed but cannot afford to buy one.
There are more than 4 million women earning wages at that level with that kind of economic problem to face.
Even in the professions only 11·7 per cent. of the workers are women. In the teaching profession, which is predominantly staffed by women, they are on the whole confined to the primary schools, whereas men generally teach in the secondary schools, they being graduates, and the women generally being non-graduates.
It is sometimes said that women do not want greater responsibility, or more managerial jobs, but if we compare the figures in this country with those of other countries, where women have the same basic characteristics, we find that while in this country 17½ per cent. of doctors are women, in the U.S.S.R. three-quarters of the doctors are women. In this country, one in 1,000 engineers are women. In France, one in 50 are women, in Norway the figure is one in 10, and in the U.S.S.R. it is one in three.
There is considerable discrimination against women in advertising and in the filling of a wide range of professional and management posts in private industry and commerce. This is paralleled by the great difficulty of women in getting promotion in many kinds of jobs. There was, rightly, a great outcry recently when an immigrant transport worker was prevented from carrying on his job as an inspector by white people who objected, but women transport workers do not even have the opportunity to become inspectors because they are not allowed to apply for training as such.
Where women are employed in the postal service as post women, they are temporary staff and cannot become established, and they suffer considerable disadvantages. A marriage bar is still imposed by some employers and others take away women's pension rights when they marry. The whole climate of opinion on this topic is such that I have never heard anyone object to women with marriage responsibilities going out to do what used to be called "charring" and is now called "being a Mrs. Mopp", but it is very difficult for them to take up higher-paid and more responsible posts.
One correspondent wrote to me recently that, when her firm was taken over by a bigger company, not one woman occupied a titled position, however menial:
Our salary scale fully approved by the Management-sponsored staff association, makes no provision for women in any higher work grades. Women working on any section automatically become junior to the men thereon regardless of age or experience.
But the biggest discrimination against women in employment is in pay rates. Nine out of 10 women do not receive equal pay. Their basic rate is 75 per cent. of the men's and in many cases it


is much lower. Both the International Labour Organisation and now the E.E.C., followed by our own Trades Union Congress, have maintained that women should have equal pay for work of equal value. This is very important, because it enables women to have a fair assessment of the value of their job, even where there is no comparable male rate for the same job.
Although I appreciate all the difficulties, I find it shocking that, only yesterday, the Ministry of Employment and Productivity was claiming that further study of the position of women in employment was needed before even a phased programme of equal pay could be introduced. There has been a surge of resentment among women about the constant procrastination in securing equal pay. The time is always out of joint and it will continue to be unless a firm decision is taken that equal pay is right and will be brought into operation whatever the difficulties.
The Government estimate in 1966 that it would cost between £600 million and £900 million a year—even if we take the higher figure—would amount, as a recent Fabian survey has shown, only to the cost of less than two years of total wage increases within the 3½ per cent. limit. The Bill would, therefore, provide for the payment of equal pay for work of equal value.
There is discrimination in education, with regard to the training of girls when they leave school. The day-release figures of training of girls are quite pathetic compared with those for boys. There is discrimination in the medical schools over the numbers of women that they will take for training as doctors.
For older women, who form a large part of those at work and who most need retraining when they go back to work, it is distrubing to know that, in 1967, when 10,620 male workers were retrained at Government centres, only 15 women were so retrained.
In public life, also, there is discrimination, of a more subtle kind. Although women are often considered to play a large part in local government, in fact they form only a very small proportion. Therefore, while this prejudice and discrimination is difficult for women to fight by themselves, a board of this kind would be of value in giving them a powerful champion. The Race Relations Board has succeeded, and, with a similar machinery, the Anti-Discrimination Board could do the same for women. It would work on similar lines to the Race Relations Board. Women would be able to apply to it, and it would provide something which is long overdue.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mrs. Braddock, Mrs. Corbet, Mrs. Ewing, Miss Herbison, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mrs. Anne Kerr, Miss Quennell, Dr. Summerskill, and Dame Joan Vickers.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

Bill to establish an anti-discrimination board to examine and remove discrimination against women in employment, education, social and public life; and to provide for equal pay for work of equal value, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th May, 1968 and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

GIBRALTAR

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) to move the first Adjournment Motion, I should remind the House that, under the revised Standing Order No. 9, as amended on 14th November, 1967, the debate on overseas aid, over which that on Gibraltar now takes precedence, will not be extended for three hours after ten o'clock and will end at that hour in the usual way.
Therefore, we are now to have two Adjournment debates, each of approximately three hours, until ten o'clock.

Mr. John Tilney: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I am grateful for the opportunity under the revised Standing Order to bring to the notice of the House a matter of urgent public importance, namely the closure of the Gibraltar frontier by the Government of Spain. I believe that this debate will show that there is a consensus throughout Britain, which I hope that the Government of Spain will note, that we are behind the people of Gibraltar, and that we support what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, that it is deplorable that the Spanish Government believe that crude pressures can resolve this international problem. Spain may consider that Britain is weak and will give way. She will find, however, that she is wrong. I therefore hope that the House will not divide on the Motion, but will demonstrate beyond peradventure that the whole country is behind Gibraltar.
I was lucky enough, a few weeks ago, to spend several days in Gibraltar, where I had long talks with fishermen, clerks, workers in the dockyard and policemen. I had discussions with the leaders of commerce and religion. I met the heads of Services and saw many of the troops. I talked with colonial officials and met several politicians and Ministers, even some "doves" though there are not many of them. I talked to the Government, and to the Opposition in the form of the Integration Party, and I was privileged to be received for a long talk with the Governor.
After seeing the galleries, St. Michael's Cave and the tunnels, I visited many

houses and flats financed by the public purse both in the town and in Catalan Bay. I saw tourist hotels, which are very comfortable, although there are not enough of them. Though not a gambler, I even went to the casino. My impressions everywhere were of great kindness and hospitality and the feeling among everyone that they wished to remain British. Indeed, I saw, still up on the walls, many of the posters, bearing either the portrait of the Monarch or the Union Jack, urging the Gibraltarians to vote British in the referendum. We in this country saw at that time on our own television the demonstrations of Gibraltarian loyalty to the Crown.
History, a common way of life and a respect for law and order—and how clean and well-ordered Gibraltar is—bind Britain and Gibraltar together: any party in power in this country which forgets that bond would, I believe, commit political suicide.
But one must admit that the economy was already, in March, suffering from the actions of Spain in past years and months. There was no investment, and development was at a standstill. I am told that, in 1964, there were 800,000 visitors to Gibraltar. The figure dropped in 1965 to 400,000 and in 1966 to 350,000. I spoke to members of the Chamber of Commerce, who told me of the drop in trade since 1965. Before then, Spanish workers had been spending up to £9,000 a day buying goods, textiles, general merchandise and foodstuffs, the import of all of which had been prevented in that year by the Spanish Government.
Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) said yesterday, they are still taking £3 million per annum from Gibraltar into Spain. In 1965, the workers were prevented by the Spanish Government from taking out any goods. In October, 1966 the cars of tourists were stopped and, although the expenditure of the Russian cargo, tanker and whaling fleets has to some extent helped Gibraltar's economy, it has, of course, suffered more from the action of Spain.
Indeed, the Spanish economy itself would have benefited had Spain not taken that action. I spent one or two days in Spain. I deliberately went by the Algeciras ferry, which I am glad to hear


is still running, and came back by the land frontier at La Linea, getting out of my car and into that rather charming horsedrawn barouche to travel the few hundred yards to the Gibraltar frontier. All the individual Spaniards I met were extremely friendly and helpful.
In the Costa del Sol I had seen something of the great British colony there, of the immense investment of British capital which has gone into Spain on that coast and, even more, of the evidence of the great tourist expenditure in that area. Yet Spain still has massive unemployment in the area north of Gibraltar. She is suffering from inflation, a wage freeze and devaluation comparable to ours, so one is not altogether surprised at the reports of trouble in Spain. One begins to wonder whether the action of the Spanish Government may be deliberate, to try to take the minds of Spaniards off their own troubles. By closing the frontier to all except Spaniards, Spain has committed a further act of hostility.
I cannot understand the actions of the United Nations in recent months. This country captured Gibraltar as long ago as 1703 and since 1713, by treaty, Gibraltar has been British. It has been subjected to great seiges, but only the storm of weather has been endured. Around the fortress over the decades have grown up a people mainly Genoese, who have married Spanish wives. Although basically the Gibaltarians are Latin, and not Anglo-Saxon, they fear the Guardia Civil, the police force of Spain. They dislike the thought of Spanish law and they abhore the absence in Spain of habeas corpus. Surely it is a human right to allow self-determination. Even Nauru an island of 3,000 people, is now independent. One would have expected the United Nations to respect the wishes of small peoples. Gibraltar, which is 3¼ miles long by ¾ mile wide, and about 1,400 feet high, is denied a hinterland and has only 25,000 people. It is in danger of being dragooned by the Afro-Asian vote in the United Nations into the maw of Spain.
I remind the House that on 20th December, 1966 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution which inter alia regretted the occurrence of certain acts which had prejudiced the smooth pro-

gress of negotiations between Britain and Spain, regretted the delay in the process of decolonisation and called on
…the two parties to continue their negotiations, taking into account the interests of the people of the territory…
It was only after the highly successful intervention of the Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan and his deputy, Mr. Peter Isola, that the phrase which I quoted was accepted by the General Assembly.
How can one discover the wishes of a people except by referendum? Spain and the United Nations were both asked to send observers, but this offer was rejected by the so-called Committee of 24; or, to give it its full name, The Special Committee on Spain with Regard to the Implementation of the Grant of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It was rejected by 16 votes to two, with six abstentions. I fear that this action on the part of the United Nations—a body in which I have believed for so long; at any rate, in its ideals and potential—has made it almost a laughing stock among intelligent people. The United Nations reminds me of the action of the Christian Church in past centuries, when it abandoned the ethic of Christianity for extraneous matters of self-interest. I sometimes begin to despair about the future of the United Nations and wonder whether, when I read the 1964 election manifesto of the Labour Party—the need to reassert British interest in the United Nations—such is really worth while.
These countries voted against the referendum: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Ivory Coast, Mali, Poland, Syria, Tunisia, the Soviet Union—no doubt because it wanted us to fall out with Spain—Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. These countries abstained: Ethiopia, Finland, India, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and, surprisingly, the United States of America. Only Australia was staunch, with Britain, of course.
It must be remembered, too, that we have offered to take our case to the International Court of Justice. That offer was turned down by Spain. Looking at the voting, I begin to wonder what are the motives behind the Governments of some of those countries. Has Latin America, with its Spanish background, promised its vote to the Arab States against Israel? Has the United States thought of its bases in Spain before the real ethic of the


United Nations? I remind the House that Article 73 of the United Nations Charter says:
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities in the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount.
Did the United Nations recognise them as paramount in that vote? It is ironic to remember that in May of last year the Spanish Minister of the Army, General Menendez Tolosa, said that Spain was in the Sahara
Not principally because of its historic title and clean record, but because of the emotion and desire of its inhabitants who see in our presence the best guarantee of maintaining their independence in the face of foreign ambition.
Let us remember, too, that Spain is in Ceuta and Melilla, on Moroccan territory. If the U.N. really considers only geography, where does it draw the boundaries? Is Haiti to be swallowed up in San Domingo and, because Spain is in the majority in the Iberian Peninsula, will it lay claim to Portugal?
Despite our semi-quarrel with Spain—which to some extent stems from the action of the Socialist Government in cancelling the naval manoeuvres and in throwing away the trading arrangements which we had with Spain—and remembering that we shared so much together in terms of mutual civilisation—[Interruption.] It is in Spain's interest and in ours that a Western Power should hold the fortress. Geographically, the fortress is as important as ever, being only 14 miles from the coastline of Africa. It is the eyes and ears to the area, as it has been over the centuries. Our defence forces there spend £8 million a year, which represents well over 50 per cent. of the economy of Gibraltar.

Mr. Stanley Orme: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his attitude with the attitude of his party which, after the Labour Party came to power in 1964, advocated the sale of frigates to Spain?

Mr. Tilney: Because we had gone a long way in planning joint manoeuvres with Spain. Because that arrangement was cancelled by the incoming Labour Government, a worsening of relations began. However, I do not want to make

party points in a debate of this sort, because I want there to be a consensus of view backing the people of Gibraltar. I fear that the Communist Powers would like to see the United Kingdom and Spain fall out. Despite this nuclear age, Gibraltar's position is vital to the Western world. I believe that it is defensible and that, if need be, we would fight if Spain were to be so unwise as to seize part of the disputed ground up to the airfield.
I want a united Western Europe. I see the sovereignty of Britain being whittled away by one treaty after another. I do not object to that. I hope that some hon. Members will see a European flag flying with the Union Jack over London and with the Spanish flag over Madrid. Yet before or after such a coming together of the Western European nations there will be need for the harbour of Gibraltar and the rock-hewn citadel. If Spain wants a compromise—if it wants or believes that the minority in this country might be prepared to accept a 99-year lease and ultimately become the majority—its actions in the last few weeks are the worst possible way of obtaining its will.
People are more important than places. I do not understand why Spain has gone out of its way to antagonise the people of Gibraltar. An article in The Times yesterday stated:
What Spain is doing is to stimulate the claim of Gibraltarians to full integration with Britain which would be valid under the treaty and United Nations resolutions on colonialism".
We must not lie down under present pressure. I remind the House of the trade figures between this country and Spain. In 1967, of about 5 million tourists who left Britain for four nights or more, 24 per cent. went to Spain. Italy, the next most popular, was well down the list with 14 per cent. In 1967, we imported £74½ million worth of goods from Spain and exported or re-exported to Spain as much as £92 million-worth, which is a balance in our favour of £18 million. But when we remember the expenditure of tourists and businessmen, which amounted to £43 million in 1966—I suspect that it has gone up a great deal since then—the balance of trade is very much in favour of Spain.
Certain things could be done. There is something which Gibraltar could do


for itself. Since the closure of the Suez Canal, fewer ships have used the Mediterranean and fewer have called at Gibraltar. However, many lines still prefer to go to Ceuta for bunkering because, I am told, they consider that the tender facilities from ship to shore are inadequate in the harbour of Gibraltar, especially when two tourist ships arrive together. Nevertheless, there are actions which Her Majesty's Government could take. I suggest that there are six such actions.
First, the British taxpayer provides £2 million in development aid as well as budgetary aid because of the action of Spain. I do not see why we should not recoup at least some of this; why a tax should not be levied on those who wish to spend their holidays in Spain, and I suggest that up to £10 per head would not be too much. It may be said that it would be difficult to impose such a tax because people would fly to France and go on to Spain from there, and that it would be difficult to stop them from doing that. If they took that route it would certainly be more expensive for them. I listened carefully to what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday about interfering with individuals' rights to have their holidays wherever they chose. However, I do not believe it is right for British citizens to condone this hostility. I would therefore, as the Spaniards have closed the Gibraltar frontier with Spain, welcome a temporary and partial closure of our tourist frontier with Spain.
Secondly, careful thought should be given to replacing Spanish labour in a territory which has virtually become an island. Some time ago, Spain prevented any women coming over to work in Gibraltar, but the Gibraltarian women, under the leadership of Mrs. Angela Smith, showed valiantly how they could do without the Spanish women although many of them were great friends of the various Gibraltarian households. Why should not Moroccans take the place of many of the Spaniards? Water is taken from Morocco. Training schemes for the Moroccans might be required. Why should not more mechanisation be undertaken?
My third suggestion is that there should be a lower cabotage rate for the air fares between this country and Gibraltar. I am surprised to find that the cheapest

mid-week night flight fare to Gibraltar is £36 18s., a journey of 1,077 miles. The fare is only £37 10s. to Malta, which is nearly 1,300 miles from this country. I hope that some of those who contemplate taking their holidays in Spain will remember how delightful Malta is and that it is in the sterling area and not subject to all the limits of foreign travel.
I hope that the Government can urge the airlines to consider whether they cannot reduce the cost of the air fare to Gibraltar, which is much more than the fare of £30 13s. for a mid-week night flight to Barcelona. The fare to Gibraltar should at least be brought down to that rate.
I would also like to know from the Government whether it is right for nationalised industries to use British capital to invest in new hotel development in Minorca and other parts of Spain at such a time. Would it not be much better to invest British taxpayers' money in hotels in Gibraltar, which could become the temperate Hong Kong of the Mediterranean, with all its beauty, charm and originality and yet its apparent British way of life?
My fourth suggestion is that the Government should consider a low-interest loan to Gibraltar to provide more hotels. There are only 1,000 hotel beds in Gibraltar, 850 of which are of reasonable standard. Another 1,500 are required.
My fifth suggestion is that attention should be given to the large numbers of Spaniards temporarily employed in the hotels of Britain. They come over here in large numbers. Would it not be very much better to see whether some of our Commonwealth immigrants, who are admirable hotel and domestic staff in their own countries, should not be trained for our hotels in this country rather than the temporary Spanish workers?
My final point is that under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act Gibraltarian citizens are treated as third-class British subjects, despite the fact that many of them spent many of the war years over here to relieve the pressure on Gibraltar and a number of their children may have been born in this country. Under the Treaty of Utrecht, it would be permissible to integrate Gibraltar with this country and for us to have a Member of the House from Gibraltar, but I doubt


whether Gibraltar would like that. The Gibraltarians would prefer their own taxes to ours and, similarly, their own tariffs and excise arrangements.
Is there, however, any reason why they should not be treated like the inhabitants of the Channel Islands? They fear for the future. During the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, I endeavoured to move an Amendment on this, but failed. It was debated by Lord St. Oswald and Lord Merrivale in another place, even at 8 o'clock in the morning, but they got a cold reply from the Lord Chancellor.
I believe that Gibraltar and, for that matter, the much smaller Falkland Islands, with only 2,500 people, are unique in their claim for full British citizenship and that we cannot properly say that it would be a precedent for the other territories of what remains of the Colonial Empire, because they can never be independent, the Falklands, through fear of absorption by the Argentine, and, in the case of Gibraltar, because of the Treaty of Utrecht, which we must honour. Action on all these suggestions could be taken by Her Majesty's Government.
It would be so much better, however, to achieve a settlement. Gibraltar merely wants security, a free British way of life and a chance to develop her small territory as a tourist paradise for all Western Europe. Yet Gibraltarians fear that we may not keep our faith with those who put their trust in us. To quote again from The Times of yesterday:
When Spaniards note the moves over the Falklands, or examine the proposed Anglo-Guatemala treaty on British Honduras, they may be excused for concluding, quite wrongly, that the British may be induced by pressure to abandon Gibraltar.
I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear beyond peradventure this afternoon that we will protect Gibraltar and fight her battles, economic or of any kind, but that we hope that common sense will prevail, to the mutual advantage of the people of Gibraltar, of Britain and of Spain.

4.16 p.m.

Sir Dingle Foot: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) is to be congratulated on raising this topic today. I was in the fullest agreement with about 90 per cent. of what

he said. This is an issue on which there is substantial identity of view, not only in this House, but in the country. We are all agreed that we cannot hand over the people of Gibraltar against their will to Spain, or, for that matter, to anyone else.
It is, however, important to make quite clear, not so much to ourselves as to the world outside, the grounds on which we arrive at that conclusion. During the last three years, a series of Notes have been exchanged between the British and Spanish Governments. There have been arguments about the Treaty of Utrecht, the circumstances in which it was signed and the extent to which it has been adhered to. There have been further arguments about the zone between the Rock and the fence, the Spaniards claiming that it was never covered by the original treaty and that the British have encroached upon it, and the British relying upon the doctrines of acquiescence and prescription.
All these matters could, and would, have been canvassed in the International Court had the Spanish Government agreed to go there, but in presenting our case outside we should take our stand first and foremost, not on these rather legalistic and historical considerations, but on the Charter of the United Nations, and particularly the provision to which the hon. Member for Wavertree referred.
I regret as much as the hon. Member the votes at the United Nations on this subject. I believe that it is impossible to justify the majority vote. Nevertheless, we in this country should take our stand on the Charter and make quite clear that, whatever anybody else may do, we intend to carry out our Charter obligations.
It is important in that connection to emphasise that, where there is any form of conflict between any other international engagements and the Charter, it is the Charter which must prevail. That is laid down in an Article which has not I think, been cited in these debates, Article 103:
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.
The obligations are set out, as the hon. Gentleman said, in Article 73, which refers to the way in which territories still


under colonial rule must be administered. It refers in particular to
the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount".
It goes on to specify what those obligations are. The second paragrapth says:
to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions".
No one has the slightest doubt what are the political aspirations of the people of Gibraltar. I would say, in parenthesis, that the argument that I am putting forward applies with no less force to the Falkland Islands and British Honduras.
I go back to another paragraph in Article 73, which is less seldom quoted:
to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses".
We cannot possibly ensure the just treatment of the people of Gibraltar if they are handed over to the present Spanish régime. Today, 30 years after the end of the Civil War, the Government of General Franco is still one of the most repressive in the world. We cannot read any account of what happens in Spain without realising that liberty is still a dirty word in Madrid.
The hon. Member quoted from an article in The Times. I want to quote from an article which appeared a day or two ago from The Times' team which went to Spain. I quote one paragraph only:
As the right-wing régime opts increasingly for oppression, it alienates many of its staunchest supporters. Among them are the professional-class parents of university students, disenchanted by the unimaginative measures taken to quell student unrest. The Roman Catholic Church, long thought to be the Government's strongest prop, is faced with a mounting revolt by clergy and Christian laity alike. Parish priests from the Barcelona suburbs turns out on the streets in scores to protest against police brutality.
In this House and, I hope, throughout the country, we distinguish between the Spanish Government, and the Spanish people, but it is the Spanish Government with whom we now have to deal.
I come to the question, considered by the hon. Gentleman, of what can be done. I do not believe that it is practicable to prevent British tourists from going to Spain if they choose, but I think we ought to appeal to them not to go in present circumstances. Also, I should be reluc-

tant to keep out the Spanish workers who normally come to this country at certain times of the year.
Nevertheless, I think that there are a number of steps that we could take. Some of them have just been indicated to the House by the hon. Gentleman. Some are set out in today's Guardian in an interview with Mr. Suriya, the Gibraltar Minister of Economic Development. He wants us to arrange for more ships to call at Gibraltar. He also asks that the British Government should co-operate in building a new hotel with 300 bedrooms and facilities for the holding of conferences, and he further asks for the construction of a yacht marina. Those are all ways in which the British Government could give practical help at the present time, and I hope that they will be very closely examined by my right hon. Friends. I am not in any way attacking the Government. In this matter I have complete confidence in the firmness and determination of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

4.25 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Perhaps the best way in which I can express the very genuine gratitude of the people of Gibraltar to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) for raising this subject yesterday, and to you, Mr. Speaker, for granting this debate, is to read a telegram that I received a few moments ago from Gibraltar. I think it worth putting on record how rapidly the people of Gibraltar have responded.
The telegram is from the members of the Chamber of Commerce in Gibraltar, the body which on the face of it stands to gain most from a settlement with Spain because it is the business community above all that is suffering. I suggest that their forthright response has all the more significance. The telegram reads:
The Directors and Members of the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce thank you, John Tilney, and other Members of Parliament for your warm support for us in Gibraltar in demanding debate and to Speaker for agreeing to its taking place today as a matter of urgency. All Gibraltar has faith and confidence that Parliament and the British people will continue to support our determination that, come what may, we shall remain British and strengthen our bond with you all.
In the climate of what has happened—fresh restrictions—this indicates what a


deep responsibility we in this House have in that our action has evoked a response as rapid as that. I wish not only that the British people and this House would express themselves as firmly, but that the British Government would express themselves a little more firmly in the future than they have done in the past.
Although Her Majesty's Government, in their wisdom, did not promote any United Kingdom referees at last September's plebiscite—for reasons which were never made quite clear—I was invited to go out as an unofficial one and was there throughout the whole period. What took place at that time was far more than an overwhelming vote. The countries which supplied official referees were Kenya, Jamaica, Pakistan and New Zealand. Far too little public recognition has been given to the fact that those four observers came—let us face it—from countries not all of which have by no means always voted in the United Nations or elsewhere on our side. Those distinguished gentlemen, acting in their individual capacity, gave 100 per cent. clear support to the absolute genuineness and fairness of the plebiscite. Most such reports contain some points of criticism, but in their report there was not one item of criticism that suggested that the result of the plebiscite was not completely true, un-intimidated and uninfluenced and did not show the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
What happened that night? I was in the crowd outside the palace when the result was announced. The enthusiasm was overwhelming. Men, women and children were openly weeping in the streets because of the significance of the occasion. The Governor and the Chief Minister went on the balcony and, responding to the crowd, asked them to disperse peacefully to their homes, but gave a perfectly clear indication—I do not blame them for what has happened since, because they believed it—that the result was only a prelude to the implementation of the referendum in the sense of steps being taken to strengthen the bonds of Gibraltar with this country.
That was understood by the thousands in the square that night. Moreover, on the same occasion it was mentioned that a constitutional conference would take place early in the New Year. For one

reason or another, the conference promised so soon after the referendum is now to take place—and even that is not definitely setled—at the end of June this year. Those six months have seen a definite erosion in the confidence of Gibraltarians in Her Majesty's Government to look after their interests.
It is no use for Ministers of the Crown in this House or in another place to say that they cannot understand what it is all about. Over and over again, they have said that they will stand by the people of Gibraltar. Her Majesty's Ministers have to look at this in the context of the people who, last September, showed their overwhelming support and who, since then, have seen nothing happen. In fact, they have seen something happen. They have seen Her Majesty's Government make further grovelling attempts to renew negotiations with Spain, but no constitutional talks with them.
Only the other day a Minister from the Box—not the Minister who will be replying to this debate, but one of his colleagues—said that one of the reasons why Gibraltar could now have its conference was because talks with Spain were out of the way. The Secretary of State did not say this himself, but that was the impression which was conveyed by his colleague, and I have written to the Secretary of State about this. I hope that he will clarify this publicly today.
In making points about Gibraltar in this House, I do not do so, as the hon. Member for Torquay, for the sake of it. I do so for the reason that day after day I and other hon. Members receive letters from people in Gibraltar expressing concern, and it is those views that we are putting forward.
What has happened in Gibraltar is a hangover following on the referendum. A hangover is never a particularly pleasant state, either physically or mentally. This has contributed to the sourness of the riots which occurred the other day when the so-called "doves" went to Madrid.
I ask the Secretary of State to clarify a further point. It is widely believed in Gibraltar—I say this in all seriousness, and I ask the Secretary of State either to confirm or to deny it—that Her Majesty's Government knew of or connived at the visit of those gentlemen to Madrid in


advance of their going there. I am not making an accusation. I am saying that this is widely believed in Gibraltar today, and I have been approached to see whether this can be clarified. It is this sort of suspicion that erodes the confidence of the people in Gibraltar, so that they wonder if this would be the beginning of another bout of talks which will delay once more the constitutional talks.
I have quite shortly painted a picture of the past. I will now address my mind to what in practical terms can be done. Economic aid, although obviously a central feature, is not by any means the only thing we can do. I would ask the Government, although they have full right to take credit for it, not to exaggerate their contribution up to now. In terms of the total budget which Gibraltar has to meet out of its own resources, £200,000 is a tiny sum. The annual budget of Gibraltar is £2 million. By all means, let us pat ourselves on the back, but let us not think it is so marvellous in terms of what we shall have to continue to do in the future. It represents only a fraction of what this Government, and others too, for all I know, spend on far less worthy causes than helping this small community.
There is the difficult question of retaliation, and whether pressures on Spain will contribute towards a desirable result. I was amused to hear the Foreign Secretary yesterday make such a strong point that economic pressures exerted for a political end were not likely to achieve their aims. As I want to keep the House in a pleasant mood this afternoon, I will not pursue a possible paradox in that attitude.
I questioned the Foreign Secretary about debarring Spanish workers from going into Gibraltar. They are the only people who can cross the frontier and take out sterling at the end of the month. He said that we must be careful that we hurt only the right people. This, also, is a paradoxical situation in another context where I have been told that the innocent have to suffer along with the guilty if it is for a desirable political end. Yet it is true that one must bear all these considerations in mind if one is to be helpful.
There are two facets I would mention on the question of holidays. I find it difficult to appreciate why more people

in this country do not feel a certain unhappiness about bolstering Spain's economy while pressure on Gibraltar exists. However, that must be for every man to decide for himself, and I would not wish to persuade anyone. The Foreign Secretary was right on that, yesterday. Prevention of free movement does not help.
The Spanish workers coming into Gibraltar will be stopped before very long, whether we like it or not, and it might just as well be the British who take the initiative. One of two things will happen; either Spain will withdraw when it suits them and we shall not be ready, or the people of Gibraltar, good tempered, and good natured as they are, in the light of the latest restrictions and the claustrophobia undoubtedly engendered especially among the poor people who cannot regularly escape by aeroplane.
There will be trouble with Spanish workers before long if no positive action is taken by the Government. Some Spanish workers will then be hurt in a riot and we shall either find ourselves in a major imbroglio with Spain, and she will withdraw them, and we shall have to debar them anyway. I would make a wager with the Secretary of State that, unless we take strong measures, the Spanish workers will not be in Gibraltar within a month, whether we take the initiative or not. Our hands will be forced one way or the other.
The second retaliatory move which we might take on our initiative has been mentioned by my hon. Friend. Because of what happened with the Kenya Asians we are having to take more immigrants into the country than was planned a little time ago. It has been admitted that this figure will have to be increased. I do not see why the purely discretionary permits to Spanish workers to come to this country should not be reviewed. This, surely, is not an unfair suggestion. The Spaniards should move to the bottom of the list, when one considers that week after week they are not only coming here and obtaining the benefits, but that they are, during a period of difficulty with the balance of payments, sending money home.
There is surely a lack of logic here. They are making life difficult in Gibraltar, and yet we are in some cases


putting them ahead of other immigrants with a better case for coming into the country than the Spanish possess. This is not a question of hurting innocent people. I am merely saying that we should withstand so much immigration and tell them they will come at the bottom of the list as long as they continue to behave as they are behaving now.
I move to more constructive matters. A very good result flowed from the appointment of the Malta Development Commission of businessmen from both countries. Gibraltar, too, is a small country, I know it very well indeed. I declare my interest, although it is not a direct financial one, in that I have done my best to get firms to go there from this country. A lot more could be done. We are talking about the economic wellbeing of only 25,000 or 26,000 people. A concerted move by business and Government together could easily get us out of a jam and, incidentally, save Her Majesty's Government a good deal of budgetary aid in the future. These are not great problems, and Gibraltar could be helped along very much by a small group of devoted Britishers and Gibraltarians working together, as in the case of Malta.
The House would be surprised at how rapidly results could flow, and this would have a very good psychological effect on the Gibraltarians. They would be able to see how long we intend to stay there, as would the Spaniards which would be a better demonstration of our intention than sending diplomatic notes which are thrown into the waste-paper basket in Madrid the minute they are received.
Finally, I have never believed in the value of an integration policy for the Gibraltarians. This debate is a good answer to those who think that their affairs would be looked after better by a single M.P. for Gibraltar than by the House of Commons, which on these occasions very well rises to the need to look after those who are not represented here. We know the difficulty of getting a debate on matters concerning our constituencies. The Gibraltarian member would find himself extremely frustrated if he had to join the line of those who wanted to talk about their own more immediate affairs. Nevertheless, if a

majority of the people of Gibraltar showed that they wanted integration with us, I should not be one of those who stood in their way from any narrow parochial point of view. However, that would not be in their true interests, and I hope that they will settle for something different.
I revert to what the people of Gibraltar are feeling. They fear—and Her Majesty's Government have done something deliberately to encourage their fear—that this constitutional conference will produce practically nothing. Practically the only suggestion which the Secretary of State's colleague made when he went to Gibraltar was that the status of the city of Gibraltar should be raised to that of a Royal borough and that it should be given a lord mayor rather than a mayor. I do not know whether the noble Lord thought that, that, in view of the mood of the people of Gibraltar, was the sort of thing to get the blood coursing through their veins. If I were living there under the present stresses and strains, it would not excite me.
I have been trying to obtain, and I think that I can fairly say that I have obtained, Her Majesty's Government's view that from a legal point of view there would be no breach of the Treaty of Utrecht if a relationship similar to that which exists between this country and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were granted to Gibraltar. Whenever we try to get this Government to agree to big constitutional changes for Gibraltar, we are always told that we must not do this because of the risk of running up against the Treaty of Utrecht. But it appears now that there is no danger of this. I never thought that there was. Her Majesty's Government now concede that that would not run counter to any articles in the Treaty of Utrecht.
That would do two things. First, it would allay the Gibraltarians' fears that in the end they will be deserted by a change of mood in this country or elsewhere. Secondly, it would encourage them to do whatever was necessary in their interests and face the fact that there will be a long and indefinite period of Spanish hostility and will, therefore, have to play their part and develop an island economy and outlook. There is no halfway house. But we cannot expect them


to do that if we leave them in a vacuum. If we did those two things and gave the people of Gibraltar a constitutional link, this would have a very good psychological effect and we would get out of their mind the fear that they have nowhere to go because, just like the citizens of the Channel Islands, they would be able freely to come to this country.
If anyone fears a sudden mass immigration of people from Gibraltar, he has only to consider the total population and realise that the only reason why they would want to come here is their sense of claustrophobia. For Gibraltarians it becomes almost a sickness after a time when they know that they have absolutely nowhere to go. This sort of gesture by the British Government would not lead to large numbers of Gibraltarians Doming here. If they did come, it would amount to less than a month's past intake of other categories of immigrants. Even if the whole population abandoned the Rock, it would not make that much impact. I do not think that even my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) would take exception to an inflow of people from Gibraltar in these exceptional circumstances.
Our best contribution would be to en- able the people of Gibraltar, under whatever constitution we adopt, first, to appreciate that they are with us for good, if that is what is wanted, and, secondly, that they can come to this country freely as British citizens. It is so easy to do these things. We make a plea to the Government to take these small steps which would have a most rewarding result in the near future for the future of this small country and our own self-respect.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: The whole House would want to congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on seizing the initiative yesterday and enabling this debate to take place by permission of Mr. Speaker. If this has upset the Government time-table, and perhaps Ministers, they have only themselves to blame. The double-talk which has been going on between the Government and Spain, on the one hand, and the Government of Gibraltar, on the other, during the last few months has

caused even the most loyal supporters of the Government to doubt their intentions.
We have wondered whether they have been waiting for something to happen in Spain, just as those who support Britain's entry into the European Economic Community have been wondering whether Britain is waiting for something to happen in France. With a change of Government in those two countries, perhaps the Governments' policies will be changed, too.
We call in this debate for a clear indication by the Government spokesman of the Government's future policy and intentions. Let there be no doubt that there is almost a united House on this matter. Not a single voice has been raised by the Spanish lobby or by any supporters of the present Spanish régime on either side of the House against the view expressed by hon. Members opposite and on this side over the last few months.
The talks which have been held with the Spanish Government have been a mistake from the beginning, because everybody knows that Spain is interested in only one thing—flying the Spanish flag on the Rock of Gibraltar. They are not interested in anything else. When it was said that we were prepared to discuss, not the possession and sovereignty of Gibraltar, but only the restrictions which have been imposed by the Spanish Government on the Gibraltarians, the Spaniards backed out of the discussions. That was a clear indication that they were not interested in anything except getting possession of the rock. At the same time, the British Government were giving verbal assurances to the Gibraltarians that we would always stand by them. They were so vague and meaningless that they caused a certain amount of doubt among the loyal population of Gibraltar.
As a democratic country, we cannot do less than stand by them. Gibraltar is a British Colony. The recent referendum showed that over 12,000 people in Gibraltar wanted a closer association with Britain and to remain British and that only a handful of people, 44—wanted to give up their British nationality and a closer relationship with Spain. Obviously, the Gibraltarians, used to democracy, freedom of speech and free elections, did not wish to ally themselves with Fascist Spain.
Perhaps the reason for the Government's attitude and the doubts which have arisen in Spain stem from the advisers to the Government. It may be that the advisers to Her Majesty's Minister do not understand the nature of Fascism. They have not had to deal with it. They cannot understand that they are dealing with Fascist bullies and a police State in which there is suppression of free speech and imprisonment without trial and where none of the democratic safeguards which we enjoy exist. I am not talking of the Spanish people. They are, like people all over the world, mixed, mainly very charming, hospitable and friendly. I am talking of the Spanish régime, and for that the Spanish people are not responsible. They have had no chance of voting for or against the régime. They have had to accept it as a military junta.
In addition, the Foreign Office advisers do not understand something which is almost unique in British history. Here is a British Colony which wants to remain British—a most unusual situation. It would be easy to deal with a British Colony which was demanding its independence, and whose people were shooting British soldiers in the back and throwing stones at the Governor's windows. Gibraltar would get its independence if only it created enough damage. Other Colonies obtained their independence in that way, but Gibraltar is loyal, and it is suffering for its loyalty. This is one of the things which perhaps Her Majesty's Government advisers have not taken into account. It is a situation for which there is very little precedent and they have not yet worked out a pattern of behaviour.
Every time talks have been instituted between the British Government and Spain on the future of Gibraltar, or the relationship between Spain and Britain, the screw has been turned even tighter, and more restrictions have been imposed by Spain every time we have conceded that we will talk to Spain about the situation. We have seen this going on for years.
The hon. Member for Wavertree brought a little political implication into the situation by saying that the Labour Government of 1964 fed some oil on to the flames when they refused to take part in military manœuvres with Spain and refused to supply frigates to Spain,

but that was not the origin of this dispute. The origin of these restrictions on Gibraltar goes back a dozen years or more. They go back to the time when Her Majesty the Queen visited Gibraltar without asking Franco's permission.
The result of that was the withdrawal of the Spanish consul from Gibraltar and the imposition of passes for Gibraltarians who wished to go across the frontier into Spain. The restrictions imposed then were not so severe as they are now. They have been stiffened and intensified over the years, but that was the beginning of them. The previous happy, neighbourly relations which existed between Gibraltar and Spain were interrupted and broken, and they have never been rejoined from the time that the Queen paid a visit to her loyal Colony of Gibraltar 13 years ago.
That fact should be better known than it is. Then there would not be the political ding-dong going on about whether we should or should not have supplied frigates to Spain in 1964. After all, the Labour Government did then only what both sides of the House say that they should do now. Therefore, the refusal to supply frigates at that time should be a subject for congratulation by hon. Members opposite, not one of condemnation.
How long does it take our advisers to learn the lesson that appeasement of dictators does not bring results and does not work? How long does it take to study the history of the pre-war appeasement of Hitler and Mussolini and to see what came out of the appeasement which went on at that time? How long does it take to learn the lesson of history which Franco learned from Hitler and Mussolini of how to run his country and how to run his Government? He would not have been in power today had it not been for their help, but for all their power, their arrogance and hostility and diplomatic viability, the Spanish régime is a very stupid one.
If Spain really wanted to get possession of the Rock of Gibraltar, the way for her to do it would be to woo the inhabitants of Gibraltar by friendliness, by giving them generous terms, making them welcome and making them feel that they would be a welcome part of Spain, instead of treating them as though they are deadly enemies and subjecting them, day


after day, to abusive propaganda by television and radio. That is not the way to woo people one wants to be friends and to make them part of one's family. It is sheer stupidity on the part of the Franco Government to behave in the way they do, because nothing cements people more than to have enemies on the other side of tie border attacking them instead of wooing them with friendly gestures and generosity.
I can say that now because it is too late for any action which the Franco régime may take. They have done the damage to the friendliness of the people of Gibraltar and, whatever may happen in future, there will always be the memory of the hostility and bitterness shown by the Spanish régime against the Gibraltar people. The people of Gibraltar are loyal and patient, but we cannot expect them to be patient forever. I do not know that we can expect them to be loyal forever. No expression of mother love from the motherland will compensate them forever for the exasperation caused by seeing no response by Britain to the way in which they, as loyal members of the British family, are treated by the Spanish Government.
Some time, as the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) said, there might be some reaction by the Gibraltarians to the Spanish workers who are still working in Gibraltar and crossing the frontier each day. We could be faced then with complaints from Spain and legally and technically we should be in the wrong. The Government cannot continue to bank on the loyal and moderate leaders who at present are leading the people of Gibraltar. They have formed a coalition, and they have the backing of well over 90 per cent. of the people of Gibraltar, but their moderation and their loyalty are being subjected to a certain amount of strain when they cannot see results from their dealings with the British Government.
What can we do to help? Every hon. Member who has spoken so far in this debate has contributed suggestions for what can be done. I, too, have some suggestions. Some of them dovetail into some of the suggestions already put forward, but I start with one which has not yet been made. I put forward the proposition that we should recall our Ambassador from Madrid. That would have

to be followed by the recall of the Spanish Ambassador from London, in which case the Embassy would be manned by a chargé d'aflaires which would lower the level of the status of Spain in the international sphere as a world Power. This would be a blow to their pride, something not violent but which would have an effect.
I would have another look at the way in which, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, we are giving grants-in-aid to see whether those grants are being given in sufficient quantities, whether they are being given sufficiently quickly, and how long it takes to vet an application for assistance when put in by the Government of Gibraltar before the Treasury sanctions it, and whether they cannot be speeded to show a measure of willingness to go half-way to meeting them.
Then there is the question of air flights into Spain and into Gibraltar. Restrictions are placed on the land frontier. At present, there is no land communication, only sea and air communication. I have no doubt whatever that in the near future there will be interruption in the sea communication. Spanish ships will fill the bay and there will be interruption of shipping out of Gibraltar. That leaves us with only air communication. I suggest that through our nationalised B.E.A. we should arrange for more flights into Gibraltar and fewer flights into Spain, more into Gibraltar and on to Tangier.
It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Wavertree that we should put a tax on tourists going to Spain. I would be thoroughly in favour of that. It would cut down on our sterling going out and it would cut down on their tourism, on which they depend a great deal to balance their budget. The new constitutional talks, which are due to begin rather belatedly, should be speeded up. We should also speed up the industrial development of Gibraltar. The two go together, because there is not likely to be very much industrial development and investment in a country which is not firmly based. Until the constitution has been settled, there will be some hesitation on industrial development and investment. Long-term security and stability must be given to Gibraltar so that it can build up its industries and its morale, which is so important.
There are at present about 5,000 Spanish workers who pass the frontier daily into Gibraltar and take back into Spain between £2 million and £3 million sterling every year. They are not allowed to buy anything in Gibraltar: they must take their sterling across the frontier and exchange it at the Spanish frontier post at a "phoney" rate of exchange, and then spend their pesetas in Spain. So Spain gets the full value of the sterling which is paid out in wages to Spanish workers.
I do not see why we continue to allow 5,000 Spanish workers to come into Gibraltar to work. We have unemployed people in Britain. There are unemployed people in the dockyards of Malta. There are unemployed people in Portugal and in Morocco. I do not see why we should not take the initiative of dismissing those 5,000 Spanish workers who work today in the workshops and the dockyards of Gibraltar and replacing them by other people, and thus save the sterling.
A suggestion has been made about restricting Spanish workers in Britain. I have looked at the figures. The latest are for 1966 and I see that over 2,000 workers were allowed into Britain in that year for less than 12 months, 4,800 for 12 months and about 1,400 for 12 months or more. If we are to tighten up on immigration and have stricter control of work permits, I share with the hon. Member for Torquay the desire that we should start cutting down on the workers who come here from Spain and should extend our strict control, in the first place, to the Spanish workers who come to this country.
The next thing we should do is to review our trade treaties with Spain. These come up periodically for review and modification and the next time we have trade talks with the representatives of the Spanish Government we should insist, as a matter of right, that Gibraltar be treated as a part of Britain and that whatever is good for Spanish-British trade should also be good for Spanish-Gibraltar trade, that a blow to Gibraltar will be treated as a blow to Britain.
It may be said—and, indeed, it has been said in a rather despicable leading article in the Yorkshire Post this morning—that whatever we do to injure Spain in the way of retaliation will result in cutting off our noses to spite our faces, and will turn back on us. That has not

deterred us from action on a moral issue which we have thought to be necessary in other parts of the world. Several times in the past few months I have heard on the subject of Rhodesia that it is a moral issue and that, even though it is costing us a great deal to stand by this moral issue and our obligations and what we believe to be right, we have undertaken it and are going through with it.
It may well be that our trade with Spain will be injured. It may well be that we as well as Spain, will suffer by it, but on a moral issue one does not count the suffering but the extent to which one stands by one's principles and one's friends. I regard Gibraltar as being on an equivalent level as a moral issue and I hope that the representative of Her Majesty's Government will accept that moral obligation and see to it that Gibraltar has no doubts or fears for its future.

5.4 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I am sure that the House has listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger). I agree with almost every word he has said. He has taken a great interest in Gibraltarian affairs for many years.
I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) for initiating this debate. I think that he spoke very modestly and kept the temperature down when he could have said rather more.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will note the mood of the House of Commons this afternoon. On this issue the House is speaking with one voice, and when the House does that it is time for the Government to take action and not to let this matter build up to something in the country, as we have seen in other events; because this may be a small matter but in the eyes of the people there is a great principle involved.
I feel about Gibraltar as many hon. Members opposite feel about Rhodesia and we are perfectly right to express a parallel point of view. We all admire the Gibraltarians, their courage and steadfastness—they are a delightful people—and their Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, and the lead he is giving to the people of Gibraltar.
Going back to the summer of 1964 and the matter of the frigates, I well remember the Government, then in opposition, saying at that time that they would not sell the ships to Spain if they were elected in October, 1964, and so on. Of course, this has been going on for years. Franco has used the Gibraltar situation when things have been particularly bad so that he could divert attention from domestic affairs, but the situation was very inflamed in those months of 1964 and it has gone on ever since. it is for that that I blame the Government. They seem to sell arms to some countries with which we do not agree, and not to others—to Portugal, for example, although some hon. Members are in disagreement with the aims of Portugal. There are far worse countries than Spain in that respect when it comes to trading with them.
In October, 1964, the Committee of 24 invited the United Kingdom and Spain to undertake conversations to find a negotiated settlement. On the very next day, 17th October, Spain began to enforce the Customs procedure more rigidly than before. As time has gone on—as the hon. Gentleman said, months and years have gone by—Spanish measures have been progressively extended in scope and severity.
Over the years I have rather liked the Spanish people. I think that most people do. They are very agreeable and friendly. But I detest the Franco régime, although there are many worse Governments even in Europe. He may not have done a lot for his people, but many other Governments have done worse, and every country gets the Government it deserves. Perhaps we should think of that in our own country today.
The talks began on 18th May, 1966, and dragged on until June, 1967. There were no positive results. Without going into all that happened in the United Nations, it was quite disgraceful what went on. That is why I have my doubts. I support the United Nations in principle; there has to be such an organisation, but it makes mistakes. We believe what it says about Rhodesia, but then it rigs a vote and we see the result as regards Gibraltar. I hope that the Government will not have any truck with the United Nations in connection with this situation.
After the referendum the British Government again suggested talks with Spain. Spain replied that talks could wait until after discussion by the General Assembly of the United Nations. My argument to the Government is that over the years since they have been in power they never seem to have got to grips with the situation. They have shown vacillation and weakness. There have been the rumours of the discussions with the Argentine Government over the Falkland Islands and with Guatemala over British Honduras. People take encouragement from this and continue, knowing that the chances are that they will get away with baiting of this kind. Over the past 12 months this has been happening all over the world in different aspects of foreign affairs.
I was delighted to see the line taken by Lord Caradon when Britain voted against the resolution on this subject. He called it a disgrace and said that to hand over Gibraltar to a régime which had done so much to harm them would be an intolerable injustice. That is what Lord Caradon said and the Government must stand by that.
On 19th February of this year the British Government again proposed to Spain that talks be held at official level in Madrid on 15th March. These talks were held, lasted a day or two, and were called off. They failed completely. In April last year we had the air restrictions. Very little has been said about that. Fortunately, B.E.A., with charter flights into Gibraltar, managed by some very clever flying to maintain a service, but it must be extremely difficult when the weather is bad.
In April, 1967 Spain notified I.C.A.O. that a zone near Gibraltar was prohibited to all types of foreign aircraft. The hon. Member for Goole is quite right: unless we take a firm stand, there will be added restrictions. I think that on one occasion a ship with a very high mast was sited to windward of the runway, which impaired the safety of aircraft, and it was suggested that a yacht marina should be built. It is dangerous enough for a naval vessel or a cargo ship to go in and out of Gibraltar, let alone small yachts. The Government must be quite certain about what they are doing before they encourage such ventures. As to aviation, Britain raised the matter at the Council


of the I.C.A.O. under Articles 54 and 89 of the Chicago Convention. The proceedings are still continuing. Like all these things, they go on for years.
Sooner or later, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) said, the 5,000 Spanish workers will be withdrawn on some pretext or other. Without causing undue hardship to the people of Gibraltar immediate plans should be taken—I do not say stop the passes of the Spaniards tomorrow—to ensure that they can be replaced in a matter of weeks or a month or so. We should take the initiative and show the people of Gibraltar what we are doing.
In my view, the British Government have bent over backwards in an effort to find a solution, but they must remember who they are dealing with. When dealing with a man like Franco we are not dealing with a perfect gentleman. Therefore, other methods must be found. The hon. Member for Goole said that the British Ambassador should be recalled. I entirely agree, but I put it another way round. The Spanish Ambassador in London has completely failed to convey to his Government the mood and the opinions of the British people. Therefore, what is he doing here? I would declare him persona non grata. Then bring back the British Ambassador.
Only by adopting measures like this will the British Government get Franco to show some respect for Britain. It is no good going on having conferences and seeing little steps being taken bit by bit, biting into the freedom of Gibraltar. That will not do. All that is being done by Spain is very severely affecting the economy and the lives of the people of Gibraltar.
The Government could do much more. In the case of Malta, Lord Robens recently headed a mission which went out and studied the problems there. A book was circulated to Members of Parliament last week about the progress being made. Not so much progress has been made as was perhaps to be expected, but good progress has been made. Why cannot something be done for Gibraltar on the lines of the Robens mission? As for tourism there, if there are not enough tenders to take passengers off liners, more

vessels should be bought. Much more could be done.
It is not very satisfying to Gibraltarians to feel that for the immediate years ahead they must just live on British aid. They must be able to hold their heads high and earn their living in the ways they want to. They must go across the Mediterranean and bring in workers and encourage tourism from Gibraltar across to Morocco. Why cannot we offer to Gibraltar what was done for the Channel Islands? That arrangement works well. Industries have been built up there. The Gibraltarians should be offered similar arrangements.
A few years ago France got worked up about the Minquiers Islands, which lie to the south of Jersey about eight or 10 miles from France. These islands are not very important, except for fishing rights. The matter was taken to the International Court of Justice at The Hague and Britain won the case. It is no good, just because an island or a piece of land is near another country, to accede to a demand that that country has a right to it.
The people of Gibraltar have been tied to Britain for 300 years. They do not want to leave us. This is very unusual, as the hon. Member for Goole said. We are the guardians of their future and, if they do not want to leave us, we must look after them. Urgent action is required.
I respect the Secretary of State for the way he deals with matters at the Foreign Office. He is the only one there that I respect in that way. He must get to grips with this problem. I would be against putting a tax on British holiday makers going to Spain. I do not believe in interfering with the subject to a greater extent than is necessary.
However, I suggest that a Minister with responsibility for these affairs goes on television and explains in simple language to the British people what this is all about. They read a little about what takes place, but not a great deal. Let a Minister go on television and explain to the people what damage is being done to these brave people in Gibraltar.
Unless the Secretary of State gives a far more satisfactory reply than we have previously received, this will not be the last debate on Gibraltar. I shall do


everything I can to see that these people get a proper deal and that their future is assured. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the initiative against Spain and institute some sanctions.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: I want to add my congratulations to those which have been offered to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on raising this subject for debate today. I want, also, to echo the almost unanimous expression of concern about the people of Gibraltar and the territory there. There is no doubt that as we speak today the people of the Rock will be waiting in a desperately anxious mood. They will be waiting to hear the Secretary of State give a reply for Britain because of the insults by the Spanish Government against the Rock and its people.
The problem of Gibraltar falls basically into two quite simple divisions: first, the political question and the question of morale; and, secondly, the question of sustaining the territory economically. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to say categorically tonight that, as long as the people of Gibraltar clearly, in almost absolute unanimity, express their desire to remain closely associated with Britain, their desire will be respected and maintained by this Parliament without any qualifications whatsoever.
I was in Gibraltar during the referendum last year. That referendum, which was held in complete freedom and which was witnessed by other Commonwealth nations, showed that the people of Gibraltar will not be divorced by force from the United Kingdom by the Spanish Government by any means whatsoever. It is imperative that we give a clear message of guarantee today, otherwise the mood of the people of Gibraltar may rapidly deteriorate. They are isolated. They are subject to insults that no civilised nation would ever imagine should be delivered.
There is a limit even to the patience of these people. Month by month, and year by year, they have been subjected to nagging humiliations. It is time we made it quite clear that this kind of action must not continue and that the United Kingdom will always support the Rock, whatever the provocations. I am

much enamoured of the suggestion that the Spanish Ambassador in London should be sent home, because he does no good. It would be better that he were gone. We should make it quite clear in Madrid, too, that there is little purpose in our Ambassador remaining if the Spanish Government are unable to behave in a civilised fashion.
I hope that we shall be told by the Secretary of State tonight that the talks which will shortly be in progress will enable the people of Gibraltar to have a political solution which will not exclude a Channel Islands type arrangement and will not exclude, for example, if the people of Gibraltar so desire, the eventual signing of an act of union between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom.
There are individual matters to ease the morale situation in Gibraltar that I think are important. Reference has been made to the air link. I hope that we manage to encourage further charter flights at special low rates. Our fellow citizens in Gibraltar have an acute sense of claustrophobia. At present, the cheapest fare is £36 for a night flight, which is a big item in a Gibraltarian's budget. If there could be a much lower figure of £20, which I understand is economically possible, and fairly frequent contact, it would be an advantage.
The people of Malta have a special immigration concession to enter the United Kingdom. The people of Gibraltar, in somewhat the same special position as the people of Malta, should have a similar concession. If we do not do it that way, let us take 500 off the number of Spanish workers who are coming in at present and make that number available to the people of Gibraltar to enter and return freely, so that they feel that they have an immediate opening to the United Kingdom for short or long visits.
On the economic side, the question of the Spanish workers poses something of a dilemma. There have been certain initial suggestions, such as the one that they should come over on the ferry from Algeciras, which would be rather pleasant. They would spend most of their time travelling over and back and would be paid for the amount of time they spent on the Rock. But I hope that we would use the ferry for tourists in the summer.
Lord Robens has carried out an investigation into the economy of Malta, including the dockyards. I should be very interested to see an inquiry into the efficiency of the Gibraltar dockyard, perhaps by a distinguished former member of the Armed Forces in the House. I have visited it more than once and always found it something of a mystery how the 5,000 people there managed to keep themselves economically employed, waiting for a ship to turn up. I believe that we could cut those numbers fairly drastically and fairly quickly, and nothing would be lost. As with Malta, the emphasis should all the time be on commercial ship repairing.
There are Moroccan friends who have come over from Tangier to help and who behave very properly and correctly in Gibraltar. They are of benefit to Gibraltar, and their numbers can be increased. The sooner Gibraltar's dependence on Spanish labour is removed the better, because that is a further turn of the screw that Franco is waiting to inflict. I find myself in something of a dilemma, because in contemplating this we are considering punishing the Spanish workers, and that is not something that any hon. Member would want to do. The Spanish workers in the La Linea area are the unwilling victims of the régime in Madrid, which has also attacked the lawyers, the students and the factory workers.
We should make haste with industrial and economic development in Gibraltar. It is fairly easy to say that, and it has been said many times in the past, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) says, we should try to speed up the time between a project's being approved and going into operation in Gibraltar. We should persuade our friends in the Armed Forces in Gibraltar slightly more rapidly to give up even more of the territory they have occupied in out-of-date barracks and so on. I am sure that they do not want to be saddled with them. They have already cleared a good number. These are vital areas for both flats and hotels, and in view of the latest action by General Franco there must be more urgency about this.
We cannot go on indefinitely hoping that useful things will happen in the relatively near future. We should make it easier for people from the United King-

dom to go to Gibraltar and reside there permanently. We should encourage its much more frequent use by British people as a Mediterannean resort.
We have had a more or less unanimous approach on the subject of the Rock this afternoon. The people of Gibraltar have been associated with us for 250 years. When we look at the Rock we see a mirror of ourselves. We see some of the things which we are not always too pleased about but also the things of which we have every right to be proud—a free people, a free Press, a moderate voice and a democratic spirit. It is our duty today, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to send to the people of Gibraltar our clear and, without any complication whatsoever, absolute guarantee of their security in perpetuity, and our belief that they have a right to live in freedom just as we do.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I share the opinion voiced by both sides of the House this afternoon, and I support Gibraltar in her present face-to-face position with Spain. I join other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who had the initiative to secure the debate, which has so far been of great value in showing that the whole House is absolutely united in saying that Gibraltar is supported strongly, and that we have had enough of the bullying demeanour which has been adopted by the Spanish.
I hope that the message we shall get from the Minister is that at long last we shall tell Spain that enough is quite enough. I say that because for too long a succession of incidents has occurred over a number of years which we have simply passed off. We have shrugged our shoulders and hoped that the unpleasantness would end. For example, in 1966 the crossing of the frontier by tourists' cars was stopped. In 1967, the Spaniards, by a very dangerous procedure, tried to impair the use of our airfield at Gibraltar.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said, very difficult and skilled flying by all pilots who enter Gibraltar is now involved if they are not to violate the very strict


limitations of air space which Spain has imposed. I understand that in certain wind conditions it is almost impossible to land civil and military aircraft at Gibraltar airfield without violating those conditions.

Sir F. Bennett: My hon. Friend used the phrase "almost impossible". I have flown there in conditions—and it happens more frequently at night—when civil aircraft must be diverted to Tangier, which puts everybody to a great deal of expense.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observation. He has only recently returned from Gibraltar and he told us exactly what the people of Gibraltar are thinking and saying and what they hope will be the result of the debate. He also told us about the reactions in Gibraltar over the latest step the Spaniards have taken this year in closing the frontier to all but Spaniards.
I have briefly mentioned three major incidents. What is to come next? My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) suggested that within a month Spain would entirely withdraw all the Spanish workers now crossing over, and the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) suggested that we should get sea intervention by Spain on a large scale. I think that it is a little premature to suggest that those next steps will occur within a month, but occur they will if we continue to adopt the vacillating attitude of doing absolutely nothing in retaliation. It may be that they will occur sooner or later. The Spaniards may well stop all the Spanish workers crossing the border soon. They may well prevent the Algeciras ferry from running as another step in their chapter of planned incidents.
For far too long the Government have failed to identify this country with the people of Gibraltar in the face of the bullying demeanour adopted by Spain. Too often in recent years I have had the impression that Gibraltar has given the appearance of being a little country of 25,000 people face-to-face, almost alone, with a country of the stature and geographical size of Spain. I hope that one of the results of the Secretary of State's speech will be to make it clear that Gibraltar is not alone and that the British people are with her.
We have heard a number of cogent reasons from both sides of the House to

explain the Spanish attitude. I believe that it hinges quite a bit on the present health and insecurity of the dictator of Spain, General Franco. His health is ailing. Spain is as much a police State as ever; almost daily there are severe internal disruptions. It is safe to say that there are organisations in Spain simply waiting for General Franco's death. That being the case, it is in the interests of the Spanish régime at the moment to endeavour to transfer the interest of its inhabitants overseas to the problem of Gibraltar.
Some hon. Members have made interesting suggestions as to what we should do, other than nothing, which is what we have done so far. I would like, first, to see introduced at an early date a Gibraltar Bill to establish once and for all the status of Gibraltar. I should like to see nothing less than Channel Island status for Gibraltar, with all the consequent advantages and security which my hon. Friend the Member for Waver-tree spelled out.
I listened with interest to the financial measures suggested by hon. Members. I suggest that, instead of putting a tax on travel to Spain, we simply reduce the foreign currency allowance. Why should it be £50 for travellers to Spain as well as for travellers to any other part of the non-sterling world while Spaniards adopt this aggressive attitude? Why should not the currency allowance for British citizens wishing to holiday there this summer be reduced to £25 until Spain ceases its present attitude? I, too, would put the Spanish workers wishing to come here at the bottom of the list for work permits.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay, I would take steps to prepare now for the next move that Spain will possibly make—the replacement of the Spanish workers who will, sooner or later, be withdrawn. My hon. Friend suggested that Moroccans or Maltese could be introduced to Gibraltar to do the work which the Spanish workers are now doing. I understand that many hundreds could be accommodated, provided they were single, as a temporary measure in some of the old barrack accommodation.
Let us get rid of the Spanish Ambassador. I think that we should have done this years ago. Obviously, he is


ill-fitted to occupy his position if he has failed truthfully to interpret the attitude of the British people over Gibraltar. I suggest an interesting Amendment which the Government might make to the Finance Bill. They should introduce a temporary surcharge of 100 per cent. duty on Spanish wines entering this country.
Lastly, I counsel the Government to remain as immovable as the Rock of Gibraltar in this matter and to support the British people throughout in that territory.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: First, I must make it clear where I stand on this matter, because I have listened to a tremendous amount of arrant nonsense during the last half hour. It is a paradoxical situation when hon. Members on both sides agree on certain points, since they violently disagree on many others. I, too, collected money for the International Brigade as a boy when the Spanish Civil War was on. Since then, I have done a good deal of reading, and I must say that, if Franco had not been successful, Spain would have gone Communist, with a great historic effect on Europe and this country.
I remember the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in July, 1964. In the last five minutes of it, he came out with references to "Fascist Spain" and to how there would be no guns, no boats and no nothing for Spain. A few months later, he decided that we would not allow our ships to exercise with ships of the Spanish Navy. All this did a lot to exacerbate feelings in Spain.
I am not talking in support of the Franco régime, but we should cast our minds back, because some hon. Members have been trying to reduce us to tears about what happened 250 years ago, when we took Gibraltar. The Spanish people there were turned out and we brought people in from the Mediterranean areas in their place. The Spaniards have been treated as second-class citizens by the Gibraltarians for years, up to two or three years ago.
We are told of the loyalty of Gibraltar to the Crown, and I accept that. I readily accept, too, that we must take

care of the Gibraltarians. At the same time, we must try to understand the feelings of the Spaniards. If we want to arrive at the true position, we must try to look at the situation through their eyes and not be so stupid as to say that we should take certain steps when we know that the majority of world opinion is on the side of the Spanish Government.
The airport at Gibraltar has been mentioned. When we made that airport, we took mean advantage, in 1946 or 1947, by building it on land considered to be neutral. If Spain now says, "You are using the airport, but you should not invade Spanish air space", the same thing is applicable elsewhere. But all the time we expect Spain to take everything, including all the abuse meted out in this Chamber when people talk of some form of retaliation.
All the newspapers refer to restrictions. I would point out that these are not restrictions. They are the withdrawal of generous facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) said that if only the Spanish régime would accept the policy of more compromise and move the people involved, they would be more successful. But the Spanish Government have been doing that for years.
There has been a tremendous amount of smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain—it has been acknowledged. It runs into million of pounds a year. I know that many people in Gibraltar are visitors themselves and have housing in Spain, paying no tax there and no tax here. Spain gives them many facilities and I remind the House that Gibraltar itself was very pro-Franco up to 1963. It may have been against the Spanish régime, but it was pro-Franco.
There is a divided opinion in Gibraltar at present. Some people there are quite prepared to talk about the best way out of these difficulties. Many people talked about a united Europe. But if we are going to hold Gibraltar—and we know what is happening in the Mediterranean—then it would be as well for those who own Gibraltar to have friends around them and not enemies.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman said that the people of Gibraltar were pro-Franco until 1963. Is he suggesting that that pro-Franco spirit prevailed during the war years when Franco was aligned


with the dictators Mussolini and Hitler and when Gibraltar played an important part in the victory of the allies?

Mr. Roberts: I do not want to enter that controversy. I know a lot about what happened. General Franco had no one else to turn to. I do not think that he really supported either Hitler or Mussolini. I have read many books on the subject, including George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". However, I do not have time to deal with that.
It is time that we brought a little common sense to our discussions of this subject. I want the Gibraltarians to be protected and I want there to be good relations between them and the Spanish. If we can bring that about, it will help towards achieving the unification of Europe. However, if there were a diplomatic break between Spain and this country, I am sure that France and the United States of America would take the side of Spain and we should look ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
All Spain is trying to do is to implement a United Nations resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] How many hon. Members have said that the matter ought to go to the United Nations? Yet, when the resolution comes back to us, we refuse to accept it. The facilities would not have been withdrawn if the Gibraltarians had not been invited to a constitutional conference in this country. I hope that we shall not speak of restrictions. The Treaty of Utrecht may be moss-covered, but it is still a treaty until something else is put in its place. I hope that we shall deal with this issue in a common sense way and as outlined in the editorial in the Yorkshire Post, because at the end of the day we shall have to agree whether we like it or not.

5.43 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: It is with a very heavy and grieving heart that I briefly intervene in the debate. For many years I have travelled to Spain. I love Spain and I love the Spanish people, and I regret bitterly the deterioration in our relationship with the Spanish Government over the Gibraltar issue. I agreed wholeheartedly with the Foreign Secretary when he said yesterday that cruel pressures were no way in which to solve international problems. I have been a little alarmed by some of the suggestions

for retaliation. We must be careful not to indulge in cruel retaliations which would make us as vulnerable as the Spanish Government have made themselves by their attempt to secure its point of view by these methods.
I was sorry to hear the attacks from both sides of the House on the way in which the Spanish Ambassador has carried out his task in this country. I know him well and I am certain that he has faithfully, honestly and sincerely transmitted to his Government in Madrid the deep feeling in this country about Gibraltar and Gibraltarians. It is not for ambassadors to tell the people of the country in which they reside the reaction to their telegrams and it has been most unfortunate that the Spanish Ambassador should have been attacked. That is not to say that a case cannot be made out for withdrawing our ambassador in Madrid, resulting in the possible recall of the Spanish Ambassador in London.
We must make it clear beyond a per-adventure that we are not prepared to be bullied or to give way to threats to find a solution to the Gibraltar problem. We must make it clear that it is the will of both sides of the House that at this juncture we should march squarely with the Gibraltarians and stand by them in their struggle and try to support them against the threats to the position which they occupy politically and economically at this moment.
However, I have found it hard to swallow some of the solutions put forward from both sides of the House. I do not believe that full integration could ever be a final solution to the Gibraltar problem. I do not believe that year in and year out grants in aid could be regarded as a method of keeping the Gibraltar economy ticking over and providing a decent standard of living. I do not believe that we should permanently tell the Gibraltarians that they must regard themselves as an island cut off from Spain and that they must trade with North Africa.
This does not mean that I would for a moment give way to the threats and the bullying now going on, or that I suggest that we should abandon Gibraltar. The final solution must be in trying to make Spain a friendly Power. I agree with the hon. Member for Normanton


(Mr. Albert Roberts) that we are a little guilty and that we have hurled abuse at General Franco and his Government over the years and that we behaved badly over the frigates and many other things. We have also failed to look at the Spanish point of view.
If we are to find a proper solution with Gibraltar with its own self-government but next door to a friendly Spain, we must not only refrain from hurling insults at Spain, but we must look at the problem through Spanish eyes. The Spanish have a point of view about the air strip, about a fully equipped military airfield built in the neutral zone. I should like to know whether in the negotiations which have been attempted we have made any concessions to Spain and whether we have offered joint rights to use the airfield. It is not all a one-way traffic. There is a Spanish point of view about our actions in the so-called neutral zone.
While I would not for a moment weaken our support for Gibraltar at this instant, I think that the only long-term solution lies in trying to convince Spain that we are friendly towards her and wish to work with her in a friendly way and that we will seek a solution hand in hand with Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: It is regrettable that this sort of emergency debate should have to be so truncated. It would have been interesting to hear the arguments of some hon. Members opposite if they had been given free rein to develop exactly what they had in mind. Even when the House is almost united on the gravamen of a great issue of principle, almost inevitably there are engendered a number of debating points to suggest that there is some acrimony or disagreement.
We had an example of that this afternoon in some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) about the United Nations, and I was appalled by them. I yield to no one in my admiration of and my loyalty to the Gibraltarians and the repugnance I feel towards the form of Government in Spain, which is anathema to me. But when we have these strong feelings, it is still wrong to attack the United Nations simply because we disagree with its com-

mittee's findings about Gibraltar. I think that those findings were wrong and I contest them.
We have to be sane enough to look at this in a much wider context. While disagreeing with this particular committee, am I to condemn U.N.I.C.E.F., U.N.E.S.C.O., the World Health Organisation? [Interruption.] Those are the facts. I know that they may be unpalatable on reflection, but that is not my fault. We have had war for a million years. The United Nations is trying to put sanity in its place, to discuss certain serious situations. If it happens that some decisions are hurtful and harmful to us, let us say so, but in the context to which they are related to us.
It is remarkable that when we have an emergency debate, both sides of the House suddenly discover a lot of things that ought to have been done many years ago. Hon. Members opposite have been submitting admirable proposals about what ought to have been done many years ago in Gibraltar—helping her with hotels, various forms of aid and so on. The probability is that if they were returned to power tomorrow they would somehow forget this, as they forgot it over so many years. [Interruption.] When hon. Members opposite attack the Government over their handling of Gibraltar it is apparently quite in order, but when hon. Members on this side attack hon. Members opposite for what they have said, then that is an appalling thing.
I regret that they will have to like it or lump it. These things have to be said. This problem did not start in 1964, and any hon. Member opposite who believes that it did, who takes the view that this story, tragic as it might be, suddenly started in 1964, is not making any point which will aid Gibraltarians. They know that it started long before 1964.
As long ago as 1954 Spain made declarations pressing her claim on all of Gibraltar. This was the beginning of the argument. I will not criticise, although I could, the actions of the then Government of this country. Let us acknowledge the facts and not be too keen on trying to put the responsibility for all the world's problems on to this Government. In 1956 Spain began making attacks on Gibraltar airport, claiming that it was nothing more than a military airport.


This Government, and the then Government, have pointed out—and statistics support them—that fundamentally it is used for civil rather than military purposes. Because they were truthful these answers were unacceptable to the Spanish Government and they did not wish to continue with that plan. They have been searching for an excuse to nibble and nag at the constitution of Gibraltar, based on their attitude that Gibraltar belongs to Spain.
There is an amazing paradox in all this. It is right that the House should acknowledge it, and it is that despite the acrimony engendered between Great Britain and Spain over the Gibraltar issue the terms of trade between the two countries have increased remarkably. It might interest Members to know that trade with Spain in 1952 was less than £25 million and that by 1965 it had increased by no less than 300 per cent. In 1965 exports to Spain went up by 25 per cent. I am all in favour of this form of commerce, even if it is with a country for whose Government I have no time. Like so many Members I make a distinction between a Government and its people. To any supporter of the Spanish Government I would say that it is a shame that there is nowhere in Spain where one could have the sort of debate that is going on in this House today. They have to face up to this, irrespective of what other view they may take. This is fundamental to our attitude.
It has been suggested that we might have some form of integration with Gibraltar. This is an attractive argument emotionally, but practically it is very difficult. Many of the points submitted by hon. Members for closer commercial integration should be looked at very closely. They will not only establish the fact that we are loyal and support Gibraltar, but will provide practical means of supporting the Gibraltarians economically. Some ideas, like the building of hotels to assist the holiday trade, are very good. It is right that the Gibraltarians should be enabled to initiate such ideas and put them into practice. There should be some solid contribution from Great Britain. We ought to make it clear that there has been a referendum in Gibraltar and the people have made their decision about their future. The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) chided my

right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for what he said about sanctions. I know that what the hon. Gentleman had in mind was the situation in Rhodesia. He wants there to be a referendum in Rhodesia, and for the people there to decide how they should be ruled.
One does not want to enter into this sort of argument. What is sometimes perplexing is that when this is put forward from the other side one has to ask oneself very seriously: "Shall I make a reference to this or shall I keep quiet, because it is not really within the terms of the debate?" If one mentions it, it will be on the record and challenged; when one tries to explain why one has kept silent, one is charged with not having the courage to speak up. Therefore, this ought to be said.
I sincerely hope that all sides of the House will acknowledge that there cannot be any doubt anywhere, in the United Nations, among the Spanish people, if they have heard about it, among the people of this country or the world, that the Gibraltarians were given an opportunity, without any prejudice or fear to decide, secretly, what they wanted their future to be. They have demonstrated their decision with a vote that will probably be unique in history for many years to come. This Government, or any other Government, must not run away from what this means. It means that the people of Gibraltar have said: "We favour and support the democratic principle. We know that it is enshrined in the history of Great Britain and we are not, therefore, tied to Great Britain, but we voluntarily regard ourselves as a partner, irrespective of our size, of the people of those islands."
I hope that the message of this House to all those who are interested, particularly the Spanish Government, is that we here this evening have demonstrated beyond a scintilla of doubt that when there are threats, or attempts at threats, or any moves whatever against the people of the Rock of Gibraltar, those threats are accepted by us as being threats against ourselves, too.
What we have said this afternoon will demonstrate our inextricable links with Gibraltar. This debate has brought to light many things which can be done to aid Gibraltar economically. But, more


than that, it has demonstrated our complete alliance with the Gibraltarians. Henceforth, there should be no doubt in the mind of the Spanish Government that the people of these islands stand firm in their loyalty to and support of the people of Gibraltar.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Two reasons prompt me to intervene briefly in the debate. The first is that Gibraltar is about the same size in population as the County of Rutland. I cannot imagine the United Kingdom ever being frightened by the County of Rutland. Therefore, I cannot imagine why this great Spanish nation should think there is any threat to it from the little Rock of Gibraltar.
The Government need only be patient and firm on this matter. Year by year—usually about this time of the year, coming up to the summer—we have had pinpricks by the Spanish Government against the Rock. Provided the Government do not give in to the pressures from Spain, in due course the Spanish Government will decide that it has gone as far as it can and by the time we reach that situation there will be the prospect of an agreed solution. It means that the Government have to stand firm and make it clear that they intend to stand by the people of Gibraltar. It means that we shall have to assist them. It also means that the people of Gibraltar may be forced to make additional sacrifices. For example, it would be fair that they should pay slightly higher taxes than they do now if we are prepared to stand behind them.
We may have to say to Spain that if she insists on closing the border at La Linea, except to the workers coming over, leaving open only the ferry, the workers should also have to use the ferry. Disadvantage could be caused to Spain by not having these people secure employment in Gibraltar. A large number on the unemployment market would be a considerable embarrassment to the Spanish Government. Restricting the workers coming in or forcing them to use the ferry could have a salutary effect on the Spanish Government.
The second point arises from what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday. He

reiterated an appeal to the British people who were going to spend their summer holidays in Spain, an appeal which had been made by a Foreign Office spokes-man in a previous year, not to go to Spain. This seems to be in keeping with the suggestion made by the Government concerning Rhodesia, namely, that there should be some interference in private travel.
I must disclose a general interest. I have not got a private interest. Though I have a company engaged in travel, we do not send many people to Spain, because we are not largely engaged in package holidays. However, the Association of British Travel Agents have been in touch with me this morning. They are a little concerned about the effect of the statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday on our own airline arrangements and on the arrangements already made by British people and travel agents for the summer months. I suggest that it is unfair that the Government should try to bring pressure upon a foreign Government by making appeals to individuals to act for them. If the Government want to bring pressure, that is a matter for them. If they want to take action they are entitled to take it. What they are not entitled to do is to make appeals to individuals to change their arrangements which then affect individual family holidays. That is the first point.
Secondly, such action would affect the bookings on British airlines, as well as Spanish airlines, and would affect the arrangements of package-tour operators who have very heavy commitments in this connection.
I do not have a personal interest in this, but it is a matter in which my business has an overall interest in that it is a member of the Association of British Travel Agents. I hope that the Commonwealth Secretary, when he replies, will provide an assurance that there will not be any direct interference this year on arrangements that have already been made.
One hon. Member opposite suggested that we should assist Gibraltar to develop its holiday business. One has to accept that the advantage of Gibraltar as a holiday resort is clearly linked with Spain. The sooner this situation is solved, the better it will be for Gibraltar and for Spain. Spain is doing herself


a disservice in not keeping clear the lines, so that the traffic can go from Gibraltar into Spain. If there were to be a large switch of holidays from Spain to Gibraltar at this moment, Gibraltar could not take it because it has not got the hotels. Therefore, I hope that the Spanish and the British Governments in due course will be able to reach agreement. It is in the interests both of the Spanish Government and of Gibraltar in the years ahead to increase the tourist traffic which can bring money to both countries.

6.8 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Like others who have spoken, I am glad that Mr. Speaker felt it possible to meet the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney), that this matter should be debated on the Floor of the House, because the recent action of the Spanish Government directed against the people of Gibraltar offends against all the canons of neighbourly international conduct and the peaceful settlement of disputes in a civilised manner. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has already made a protest to the Spanish Government and made it clear that it is his view as well as the view of the majority of people in this country.
For some 10 years in government I lived very close to this question of Anglo-Spanish relations and the claim of Spain against Gibraltar. I never remember a year in which this claim was not lodged, but never did it become an issue threatening relations between the two countries. Broadly, there were two reasons for this. First, the Spanish Government knew that the British Government of the day, when the political repercussions of the Spanish Civil War were out of the European system, would be sympathetic to Spain's ambition to become more closely connected with the development and the security system of Europe.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The right hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am speaking for the British Government of the day. That is not unreasonable, because I believe that the international interests of Spain and of each country in the N.A.T.O. Alliance are complementary.
Secondly—and perhaps this is more acceptable to the hon. Gentleman—

privately we were able to say with a distinctness which could not be mistaken—and successive Foreign Secretaries made this clear—that British sovereignty over Gibraltar was not for trading. We told them that privately but plainly, and we could not be mistaken on that issue.
It is not in the mood of the House this afternoon to have any political controversy, and I shall therefore go only so far as to say that since then the central issue of the sovereignty of Britain over Gibraltar has somehow become blurred. I do not say that the British Government were vacillating, but it may have been thought that they were, and against the background of the Government quitting their responsibilities overseas, and unilaterally modifying their treaty obligations, the Spanish Government decided that they could be pushed around. There is no doubt about that.
Against that background it has not been easy for the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary to persuade Spain that to continue this campaign is useless, and at the same time to create in the people of Gibraltar that confidence in the British Government which is absolutely necessary. The Foreign Secretary—and I think that the whole House is glad of this—has now been specific. I can understand it if he gets a little irritated when we go on asking him to repeat the statement that he has made that the British Government stand behind Gibraltar, but, because of the background which they have created, it is necessary to do so, and I therefore ask the Commonwealth Secretary to say it again.
It seems to me that two statements are necessary, and that they should be made on behalf of both sides of the House. The first is that in no circumstances will Britain abandon sovereignty over Gibraltar unless the inhabitants of Gibraltar ask us to do so. The second is that whatever the needs of Gibraltar which genuinely arise from the hostile acts of Spain they will be met by the British Government and the British taxpayer. Those are the two essentials, and I hope that the Commonwealth Secretary will echo them. I know that he does so. I know that the Foreign Secretary has done it, but I want it done again, because it is essential. Here is a chance


to make that clear to the people of Gibraltar, to the people of Spain, and, let me add, to the United Nations.
Article 73 of the United Nations Charter on dependent territories has been quoted. It says:
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognise the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount…
I can only say that the behaviour of the United Nations' Committee dealing with this matter has been contemptible. I think that Lord Caradon's word was "disgraceful". I do not quarrel with that, but I warn the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary that in my view the mischief of this organ of the United Nations is not completed. It is quite likely that this summer it will pass a resolution asking Britain to get out of Gibraltar by a certain date.
I hope that before the next vote at the United Nations in June or July the British Government will take positive steps to convince our friends that however unlikely it may seem to them, this is a British colony, and it wants to stay connected with Britain. Our friends, including the United States, had better understand that before the next vote of the United Nations comes along. In that I support what was said by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger).
If those two statements are made specifically by the Foreign Secretary, as I am making them now on behalf of the Opposition, the question of retaliation and positive assistance to Gibraltar can be looked at calmly and with objectivity, and with the assistance—and happily he is here—of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar.
On the question of retaliation, certain general considerations are valid. It is usually a mistake to mix politics with trade, and tourism is trade. It is not practical—and here I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich(Sir Dingle Foot)—to stop tourists going to Spain. Economic sanctions seldom, if ever, produce the political results required.
I hope that we can avoid personal attacks on ambassadors. I have no doubt

that our Ambassador in Spain, and the Spanish Ambassador here, do their best for their respective countries. It seldom pays to lose contact, and this is especially true in the light of the situation in Spain, where the Spanish Government are on the way out. I shall not speculate on the fate of the Government here. Generally, it does not pay to break contacts
Many good proposals have been made today to deal with possible retaliation, and, what appeals to me much more, to help Gibraltar. The test of any action that we take or recommend should be whether it will assist Gibraltar to meet her crisis, and whether it will contribute to her long-term well being.
The question of the 5,000 to 6,000 Spanish workers who go to Gibraltar has been raised. I think that it is prudent to ensure that a replacement is found for them. That will be difficult, but it is likely that they will be stopped, and Gibraltar will then be hard put to it quickly to find an alternative. I rather like some of the suggestions which have been put forward, for example, increasing servicing for shipping, giving concessions in air fares, building an hotel, and that kind of thing, which would come under the heading of a development commission. Those proposals should be examined with the Chief Minister, and if we can hit on the appropriate thing to do it will be the most positive indication that Britain can give that she means to stand by Gibraltar.
We have not reached the constitutional talks. Various proposals have been made, and again it is for the Gibraltarians to choose. The suggestion that Gibraltar should have a kind of Channel Island status has made a considerable appeal to those who have thought about it, and I hope that it will not be too easily dismissed. It seems to have considerable merits, and I gather that the legal advice is that it is probably consistent with the Treaty of Utrecht. I hope that all those matters will be closely and sympathetically examined.
I think that the view of the great majority of the House today is that there is probably only one thing that really matters, and that is that the British Government's spokesman should say unequivocally that British sovereignty is not for bargaining, that Britain accepts absolute responsibility as a trustee for


Gibraltar's future needs. If that is made plain from both sides of the House, I think my hon. Friend can be content that he has achieved the purpose which he set himself yesterday.

6.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): This has been a serious and important debate about a community whose loyalty to this country arouses admiration and a desire to reciprocate in all parts of the House. There has been virtual unanimity throughout the debate, with only one, or perhaps one and a half, dissenting voices from the general consensus. This is important at this time, because of the message which it brings to Gibraltar and to the Governor, the Ministers and the people of Gibraltar. I know that the House would wish to convey to the Governor, as head of the Gibraltar Government, an expression of our warm admiration for the job he is doing and the confidence he commands. He bears a heavy burden of responsibility and I am grateful for the way that the House has sought to say nothing today which would have made that burden heavier.
As the House knows, the Chief Minister and one of his senior colleagues are now in London for discussions which I began with them only an hour or two ago and will continue all week. The speeches today will enable them to carry back to their colleagues the assurance that the House, like them, has the true interests of Gibraltar at heart and is conscious of the responsibilities which they carry.
I know that the House would also wish me to pay tribute to the courage and leadership of these democratically elected leaders in the face of great difficulty and provocation. All the suggestions made in the debate to convince Gibraltar that Britain and the British people are solidly behind them will be carefully examined by me and in consultation with the Gibraltar Ministers. I am very well aware that this is, above all, as the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) said, a psychological problem, because the people of Gibraltar, occupying an area about the size of Hyde Park, feel a justifiable sense of claustrophobia in the face of the threats and actions taken against them on the frontier.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said that

he felt that Gibraltar was a moral issue, as we on this side, in his words, felt that Rhodesia was a moral issue. I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government feel that both Rhodesia and Gibraltar are moral issues of great principle, in which we have a profound moral obligation to stand by the interests of the peoples of both territories.
I say now, as plainly as I can, that Her Majesty's Government will never betray the rights of the people of Gibraltar to determine where their own interests lie. I give the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) the assurance he sought, that in no circumstances will Britain surrender sovereignty over Gibraltar against the wishes of her people. I add that we will protect and support them whatever threats are brought to bear upon them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that these are satisfactory answers to his questions. I take no offence at the fact that he keeps repeating them, because, in this continuing situation, it is very important that these assurances be repeatedly reasserted.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we have already protested to the Spanish authorities about their action in closing the frontier to normal tourist traffic. The answer is that we have not yet done so, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary proposes to do so tomorrow, when he has asked the Spanish Ambassador to come to see him. We felt that this was the right timing for two reasons. First, it was, I think, important to gather as many facts as possible about the full implications of this latest action and the talks with the Gibraltar Ministers this morning have been very relevant for this. Secondly, we thought that it would be very useful to draw the Ambassador's attention to the unanimous views of the House of Commons.
I have no hope that my right hon. Friend's latest protest, however forcibly he makes it—and I have no doubt that he will make it very forcibly—will do any more than any of our other protests to alter the present policy of the Spanish authorities. Indeed, this debate, in a sense, will do more than any formal diplomatic démarche to make clear, once again, our firm opposition to the Spanish policy of pressure against a small community. However, we shall certainly take


every formal step open to us, as well as the others, to make Spain aware of the feelings in this country.
I thought that I should explain to the House how we view the Spanish justification for the new restrictions. One or two hon. Members have dealt with the Spanish arguments. First, the Spanish Government say that they have taken these measures because Britain declared that she would not apply Resolution 2353 which the General Assembly passed last December. As the House knows, I yield to no one in my belief in the importance of the United Nations, and its potentialities to develop in the direction of a genuine peace-keeping authority, but my belief in it stops a long way from a starry-eyed view that all its resolutions are written in tablets of stone.
The General Assembly is as wise or as unwise as its member nations permit it to be and I frankly regard the adoption of Resolution 2353 by the General Assembly as little short of disgraceful. I feel particularly strongly about it because I think that it does great damage to the reputation of the General Assembly as the guardian of the rights of colonial peoples. That was why we voted against the resolution.
It was, of course, a recommendation and, as the House knows, we consider our attitude to every such recommendation on the merits of the case. In this case, we gave priority, as we were bound to do, to our own obligations to the people of Gibraltar. Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), have said that, among these obligations, are the obligations under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter, in which it is laid down that the interests of the people shall be paramount. This means, paramount now—not after their future has been settled over their heads, as so many members of the United Nations seem to think in the case of Gibraltar.
We regard and will continue to regard our vote against the Resolution as an affirmation of the view which has continued to guide our policy, namely, that our paramount concern must be the in-

terests of the Gibraltarians. That is why we reject the Spanish claim that, by refusing to apply the resolution, we gave them any justification for their action in hitting against the economy of Gibraltar by new restrictions.
I come now to consider the economic and financial effects of the new restrictions, so far as they can be foreseen. Our experience has shown that, in the face of previous restrictions imposed by the Spanish Government, when there was deep and understandable anxiety immediately after the restrictions were imposed, the Gibraltar people and economy have displayed remarkable resilience. I do not doubt that the performance of Gibraltar in the face of these restrictions in the past has, to a large degree, confounded Spanish expectations.
Our experience has also shown that it is not possible accurately to predict the effect of these restrictions, at least financially. To give an example, the Gibraltar Government, in the face of the restrictions imposed at the frontier in October, 1966, expected a substantial deficit in 1967, but the actual out-turn of the year proved much more favourable than was expected, notwithstanding increases in wages and salaries which came into effect in that year, and, at the end of 1967, quite contrary to the most careful predictions which had been made, the general revenue balance stood at approximately £953,000.
It would be right to pay tribute here to the splendid efforts of the Gibraltar Government and people in introducing measures designed to raise revenue, which were largely responsible for this very good result. I shall say a little more in a moment about what we have done to help, but I agree with the hon. Member for Torquay that what is important is the way in which the people of Gibraltar rallied to help themselves.
Therefore, although I do not under-estimate the seriousness of the new restrictions, I do not wish to encourage Spain to think that they can bring the Gibraltar people to their knees by such means. Nevertheless, these new restrictions are designed to reduce Gibraltar's tourist revenue. I am examining ways in which the effect may be mitigated and I will watch closely the way in which the situation develops.
Restrictions should not affect visits made direct to and from Gibraltar, and I would like to urge people from Britain increasingly to consider spending their holidays in Gibraltar itself, which is an excellent place for a holiday, and thus help to offset the effect of the Spanish actions.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Waverttee (Mr. Tilney) and other hon. Members raised the important question of increased visits by cruise ships as a means of increasing Gibraltar's foreign exchange earnings. This is, of course, an important source of tourist income. Increased efforts have been made by the Gibraltar tourist authorities to increase the number of these visits. In 1968, I understand that a total of 66 cruise liners are expected to call at Gibraltar and I will be glad to examine any practical ways in which the Government can help to improve the facilities which Gibraltar offers for these cruise ships.
We have already, from our substantial aid funds for Gibraltar, provided a £125,000 loan on favourable terms for a chalet-type hotel development, and I have been able to get agreement this week, as one of the few immediate responses which I am able to announce to the House to these new restrictions, for further financial help by the Government for additional hotel development. The details are not yet finalised, but I will give them to the House as soon as I can.
I recognise that the House is understandably anxious to hear of some new response to these new restrictions, but I must ask the House for patience while I am in middle of the talks with the Gibraltar Ministers. But I suggest that there are three reassuring basic facts to keep in mind when considering any new ways of helping.
First, what is of overriding importance all the time is Britain's will to defend the rights of the people of Gibraltar to make up their own minds where their interests lie. I hope that what I have already said and will continue to say has left no doubt on that score. Second, in asking what more we can do for Gibraltar, it is right to remember how much we have already done and how much we are now doing. Apart from the budgetary aid, we have undertaken to support the Gibraltar Government's

present development plan to the extent of £2·7 million. This amount in relation to a population of 25,000 is evidence, I think, of our willingness to give practical financial support to Gibraltar. I was concerned at what my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) said about the possibilities of delays in vetting applications for particular projects under that development aid, and I will look into this. If he has any particular examples in mind, I should be happy to investigate them.
Third, we have engaged with the Governor and the Ministers of Gibraltar in thorough contingency planning for whatever eventuality may follow the Spanish actions. For example, since 1966, Gibraltar has been made independent of Spain for her essential supplies. This has safeguarded her from any difficulties of supplies from the closing of the land frontier. Of course, we have contingency plans for the latest Spanish actions and for any other actions which Spain may take, but I am sure that the House would not expect me to help the Spanish Government by revealing them.
However, these are plans for an emergency—I emphasise the word "emergency"—if it came to that and, if they ever had to be put into operation, it is idle to suppose that anything like business as usual could continue in Gibraltar. We understand very well, I hope, how the people there feel, but when they have had time to reflect we are confident that they will recognise that it Is in their interests, as it is in ours, not to precipitate the withdrawal of Spanish labour from Gibraltar.
Perhaps, in that connection, I might draw the attention of the House to what the Governor said immediately after the new restrictions were imposed. He appealed to the people of Gibraltar
…to avoid any situation from which disorder might develop
and called upon them to show restraint, because, as he said,
…emotional outbursts will get us nowhere and in fact only lead to further bitterness.
I suggest that that wise broadcast by the Governor is the background against which we should consider the very difficult question—I think that every speaker today has recognised that it is difficult—of what


kind of retaliation it would be sensible to seek to take against Spain in response to these restrictions. I certainly have every understanding and sympathy for the mood of those in this House and outside who look to Her Majesty's Government to retaliate against the latest Spanish restrictions.
Let us be clear of what we want to achieve before we consider how best to achieve it. Our essential objective is surely to sustain the people of Gibraltar. In doing this, we must strive to create the framework for an eventual settlement of the international problems which loom over this small and gallant community. The words uttered by many hon. Members in this context are important and we are wise to keep them in mind at a moment when we feel so strongly about some immediate crisis.
The Spanish Government must bear a heavy responsibility—of course, the responsibility—for the hardships they have imposed and for the hostility they have shown and which has been engendered. However, it is better for Britain, as far as it can, not to express words of bitterness for retaliation and not to set in train a struggle of growing intensity and bitterness in which the Gibraltarians as well as ordinary people in Spain and Britain would be likely to suffer. In the light of my preliminary discussions with the Chief Minister and his colleagues—and the discussions today were only preliminary—the people of Gibraltar understand the situation very well. They want to know, above all, that we stand behind them, and I hope that this debate has made it clear that we do.
The Government have considered carefully, on the various occasions when the Spaniards have imposed restrictions on Gibraltar, what retaliatory action we might take. There is a wide range of theoretical possibilities. A number of them have been canvassed in the House today. I do not wish to comment in any detail, for reasons which the House will understand, on the merits of these while I am in the middle of talks with the Gibraltar Ministers. I might, however, mention one of the difficulties in the way of restricting Spanish workers coming here. It is the number of them employed in the hotel industry.
The hon. Member for Torquay, for example, might find himself torn between his genuine devotion to the interests of the people of Gibraltar and his desire to represent the interests of his constituents in the hotel industry in Torquay.

Sir F. Bennett: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if such a conflict arose, the interests of the people of Gibraltar would be overriding in my mind.

Mr. Thomson: I did not doubt that and I hope that what I said did not carry any implication of that sort. However, it is a real conflict of interest and it illustrates some of the difficulties.
I would like to follow the principle of examining all the suggestions from the point of view of whether they would be likely to make matters worse for the people of Gibraltar. I have undertaken that all the suggestions that have been made will be looked at from that point of view. I was particularly interested in the constructive suggestion made in a number of quarters that there might be some lessons to be learned in Gibraltar about shipyard development from the advances that have been made in Malta. I undertake to look at this matter closely.
A good deal has been said about the idea that British tourists should be stopped or discouraged from spending their holidays in Spain. It should be remembered that about 10 per cent. of the tourists who go to Spain each year come from Britain, so that the number is very large indeed. I will confine myself at this time to simply agreeing with what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House yesterday; that Spain's behaviour to Gibraltar now makes it right for individual citizens in Britain to feel strongly about the situation and about what Spain is doing to Gibraltar to consider their own attitude towards any holiday that they might at present be considering taking in Spain.
It is within the context of our general attitude over retaliation to look at the question of the Spanish labour force in Gibraltar. Superficially, nothing would look easier than to declare a lock-out—that would be a slap in the face for Spain—but recent events in Spain do not give one grounds for confidence that the Spanish Government would be unduly distressed at the loss of employment for


6,000 workers. The real people to suffer would be the people of Gibraltar and the Spanish workers themselves. These Spanish workers should not be held responsible for the actions of the Spanish Government. We should never forget the rôle of these workers and others like them in connection with the development of political institutions in Spain that might alter the whole atmosphere, including the view of Spain held by Gibraltarians.
Apart from that, it is well known that the Spanish labour force in Gibraltar makes an important contribution to the economy of Gibraltar, both in the dockyard and the civil sector. They work in a friendly way, as they have done for many years, with the people of Gibraltar. They know their jobs and they do them well. Gibraltar could survive without its Spanish workers if it must, but the loss would present serious and severe economic problems, as the right hon. Gentleman said.
A number of hon. Members have expressed fears that we slowed down the pace of constitutional discussions to give priority to talks with Spain. The hon. Member for Torquay, among others, mentioned this point. I assure the House that there is simply no truth in these fears. The timetable of constitutional talks—some hon. Members may feel that in their judgment they have been slower than they would have wished—has been related only to the needs of Gibraltar; the need to have the next steps in constitutional development thoroughly considered.
Apart from discussing the present situation which has been created by the restrictions, I am having detailed discussions this week with the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister about the revision of the Constitution. This is preparatory to the visit of my noble Friend the Minister of State will make to Gibraltar on 17th June, when there will be full discussions on the next stage of constitutional progress. In these circumstances, it is obviously impossible for me to give any details today of what form the future constitutional changes might take. However, we are very ready to listen to ideas from the various quarters about how we should go forward in Gibraltar during the years that lie immediately ahead.
I am glad to take this opportunity, offered by the remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay, to deny categorically that Her Majesty's Government either knew or connived at the visit of the so-called "doves" to Madrid. I do not understand the fears—I say this frankly, knowing that hon. Members have sometimes chivvied me about this—of some hon. Members about talks. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole has these fears in a pronounced form. There have been two rounds of talks with Spain. The last were held in March and the round before that had been about 18 months earlier. I would not say that we have had a record of doing a great deal of talking with Spain about these problems, although there have been diplomatic exchanges. As a general principle, it is better to talk than not to talk, but it is clear that with its latest move, Spain has slammed the door on talking in present circumstances.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that enough is enough. But one never says "never" about talking, and that applies to circumstances other than Gibraltar. If at some future date it seems possible that by holding further discussions with Spain we might help the Gibraltarians and bring a solution nearer, I am sure that we would be right to use that chance. However, at present there are no plans or proposals for further talks, and, obviously, Spain has chosen the least persuasive method of convincing people like us or the Gibraltarians that talking can produce results.
I emphasise to hon. Members who have these anxieties about the link between constitutional discussions and diplomatic exchanges with Spain over Gibraltar that our only concern in the constitutional discussions is to find the right answer—it is not an easy one to find—to the next stage of Gibraltar's constitutional development. At no time during the period I have been Commonwealth Secretary has there been any suggestion that we should delay talking about constitutional progress because some other diplomatic exchanges were going on.
One of the important aspects of this debate is not only the message it brings I hope of encouragement to the people of Gibraltar, but the message that it


brings to Spain where I am confident every word that has been spoken in the House today will be closely studied. Our message is one of determination—the determination of this House, speaking for the British nation, that the interests of the 25,000 men, women and children of Gibraltar are, to use a word mentioned in the United Nations Charter from which I quoted, "paramount". The message is that we shall not under any circumstances allow them to be sacrificed.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I tell the Spanish Government in clear and unequivocal terms that no matter what pressures or provocations Spain engages in, Britain will not abandon the people of Gibraltar. We shall sustain and support them through whatever troubles they face. The people of Gibraltar can rest assured that the overwhelming majority of the British people feel a sense of deep concern for Gibraltar and for our commitments to Gibraltar. Britain will continue to stand four square behind the right of the people of Gibraltar to judge for themselves where their own interests lie.

Mr. Tilney: Because the whole feeling of the House is, I believe, behind the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

OVERSEAS AID PROGRAMME

6.46 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg. Prentice): The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg. Prentice)rose——

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this is an important and long overdue debate which inevitably will not last for very long in view of the preceding business and the extraordinary failure of the Government to suspend the 10 o'clock rule.
I therefore submit that as we have only just over three hours available, and as about half of that time must inevitably be taken by Front Bench speakers—with the result that there will be very little time for back benchers and even less time for those who hold so-called minority views on the subject—this would be an appropriate occasion for both Front Benches to forgo their right to wind up and reply to what must inevitably be an extremely perfunctory and unsatisfactory debate.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the two Front Benches, and not for the Chair.

Mr. Prentice: I am glad that we are having a debate on overseas aid, but I share the regret of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that it will not be as long as many hon. Members might have hoped. It would be appropriate, I suggest—I have discussed this with the Front Bench opposite—for the debate to be opened and closed on both sides. This would give more shape and tightness to the debate, but I appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Woking and accept that there is an obligation on all hon. and right hon. Members to be perhaps even more brief than in a debate lasting a full day.
I would like to say a great deal about the work of the Department, which I took over eight months ago, but, for the reasons I have just given, I will confine my remarks to two things. First, I wish to give an outline of the shape and size of the aid programme as it will operate in the next year or two, with some indication of the priorities that we will have


in mind. Secondly—I will begin with this—I wish to answer a question which is often asked of us, and particularly of me as Minister. It is why Britain should, in view of its economic difficulties, provide aid for other countries at the present time. This is not a controversial question in the House. The British aid programme has grown from £52 million 15 years ago to £205 million in the financial year which h as just ended. It has grown under Governments of both parties and with the support of all parties. The question I have just posed is frequently asked outside and it deserves an answer.
The first point to remember is that the question does not apply only to Britain. Sometimes the wrong impression is given that Britain is in some way uniquely generous in its aid programme. The fact is that the programme last year of £205 million represented about 0·6 of 1 per cent. of our national income, which is about the average figure for aid donor countries in the non-communist world. The Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D. obtains these figures and we see that the average figure for these countries is almost the same as the British figure.
The fundamental question is this: why should the relatively well-to-do countries—those which have industrialised and have built standards of living based on industrialisation—provide a flow of aid, as they have been doing for some years, to the less developed countries?
There are three main reasons. The first reason is simply that it is right to do so, that there is a moral duty here which one cannot avoid. If one were to stand, as I did a few months ago, in a slum area of Calcutta, and were to see, hear, smell and feel the conditions in which people are living and in which children are growing up, one could not escape the moral challenge to the people of Britain, France, the United States, the Soviet Union, and everyone in countries where there has been an industrial revolution and these problems have been solved.
As the late President Kennedy said:
We pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves for whatever period is required, not because the Communists are doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right.
The second reason is that we in the developed countries have a joint interest

with people in the developing countries in the growth of the world economy. It has been said that poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere. The corollary to that is that the growth in living standards of the poorer countries will help to provide new trading opportunities for other countries, and there is, therefore, no conflict between the dictates of the moral argument and the argument for enlightened self-interest.
The third argument is that the world is more likely to live at peace, and our children and grandchildren are more likely to inherit a peaceful world, if there is a civilised relationship between the richer and poorer countries, which includes a transfer of resources to help them with their development. There are no absolute guarantees on that aspect. Peace has been upset in the past, and may be in the future, by developed as well as underdeveloped countries. I merely point to the fact that, if the gap in living standards between the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere is to continue to grow, and if that gap is to be exacerbated, as it will be, by the population explosion, taking place in a revolutionary situation of rising expectations, following political independence and the scientific and technical advances that have taken place in advanced countries, then there is bound to be a growth of tension, and there is bound to be a threat to peace.
The Pope, in a famous message to the world a few months ago, said, "Development is another name for peace", and I believe that he was right. It could still be said to me that this is all very well in the long run, but what about the position of Britain with her balance of payments difficulties in 1968? Even if everything that has been said so far is true, ought we not temporarily to reduce, or even to abandon, our aid programme as one step towards helping to solve our balance of payments problems?
This point of view was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), in an article in last Friday's Daily Mirror from which I will quote two sentences. My hon. Friend had been giving figures for the grants and loans from Britain to developing countries over the past 10 years. He went on to say:
If we had done neither of these things"—


that is, made neither the grants nor the loans—
we would have had no balance of payments problem whatever. The gnomes of Zurich would be off our necks.
That is arrant nonsense, and I am very surprised that any hon. Member, let alone an hon. Member on this side of the House, should have written in those terms. First, it simply is not true that the flow of aid is the cause of our balance of payments difficulties. Secondly, I believe that our balance of payments difficulties would be greater today if we had not had an aid programme for the past 10 years. I will give some facts to support that.
First, of the aid that we are dispensing, taking the figure for the last year of £205 million, about two-thirds of it is spent on goods and services from this country. In other words, the amount that goes across the exchanges is about £70 million. Second, there is a flow back to this country of repayments of previous loans. Approximately half our aid programme has been in the form of loans, and we are now receiving back nearly £60 million a year in the form of repayments, including interest, on old loans. There is a very small difference between the outflow of £70 million, approximately, and the £60 million, approximately, that is coming in.
That is not the whole story. There are other factors in the situation, some of which cannot be precisely measured. One factor in the situation which might count against one is this. Supposing that we had not provided aid to the countries concerned, they might have bought some of the same goods with their own resources and paid for them. I submit to the House that as these countries are poor countries with very limited resources to spare for imports, this would in fact have been a very small figure.
The next factor to recognise is that if Britain had had no aid programme in the last 10 years, this would not have been an isolated decision by us. The fact that we have provided aid has influenced other countries' flow of aid. As I said earlier, our performance is about average, and we are getting orders for our goods which are financed by other countries' aid. At present, we are providing about 8 per cent. of the flow of aid from the Western industrialised countries to the developing

world, but we are providing about 13 per cent. of the imports that the developing countries take from the Western industrial countries. We are getting a larger share of their imports than the share we provide in overseas aid.
There is another consideration which I think is the biggest one, and that is this. It has often been said that trade follows aid. An aid programme provided by us has after-effects which can be good for our trade. For instance, if our resources help to finance the establishment of a factory, a harbour or a technical college and then, in later years, the country concerned needs replacements, spare parts and equipment, it is likely to turn to this country for those goods. If we bring students and trainees to this country for courses and they go back home and, in due course, become managers, responsible for buying programmes, they will tend to buy goods from this country.
These are factors which cannot be precisely measured. My proposition is one that cannot be proved statistically. I merely say, from a close study of the programme over the last few months, particularly when I have been concerned in it, that I am quite convinced that, if we had had no aid programme in the last 10 years, our balance of payments problem would have been worse today than it is. If we were to stop our aid programme now, then our balance of payments would be worse in the 'seventies for that reason.
I will give the House some information about the shape and the size of the programme in the next two years. I have already referred to the fact that the figure for 1967–68 was £205 million. In January, when the Cabinet was considering the whole range of Government expenditure, the aid programme was carefully studied, with every other item of expenditure. The decision that was made in relation to the aid programme was that the basic framework of our aid at the moment should continue in the next two years, 1968–69 and 1969–70, at a figure of £205 million, within which we would have to absorb any rising costs, including the costs resulting from the devaluation of the £.
I do not want to weary the House with too many details, but there were some specific costs which went up as a result of devaluation. For instance, we had to increase the allowances of technical assistance personnel serving in countries that


had not devalued. We also had to increase our subscriptions to international bodies where those subscriptions were measured in dollars. The total effect of absorbing the costs of devaluation is probably about £10 million.
On the other hand, the Cabinet decided that three items should be added to the basic programme. These were items which had arisen for special reasons. First, under the Food Aid Convention, concluded at the same time as the Kennedy Round cereals agreement, we were committed to £6 million worth a year for three years for aid in the form of cereals—either providing cereals or providing cash to buy them. The second item is replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association, which is an affiliate body of the World Bank and a major source of loans to developing countries.
Over the last three years, the I.D.A. has been financed at the rate of 250 million dollars a year, and this is to be increased to 400 million dollars a year for the coming three years. I welcome this development very much. Indeed, as I have said previously, we were prepared to go to a higher figure and suggested that the sum be doubled. However, this represents a 60 per cent. increase and, therefore, a very important increase for the Association. Part of the funds needed for the additional replenishment of the I.D.A. will be in addition to the aid ceiling.
The third additional item is the special economic assistance which we shall be granting to Singapore and Malaysia related to the rundown of the number of troops in those countries. I cannot give details tonight. We have put proposals to the two Governments concerned as to the amount and terms of the aid. We are still in touch with them on these matters. Because that item cannot be quantified yet, I cannot give the total aid figure for 1968–69. If we take into account the fact that we have to absorb the rising costs and that we have the additional items, it will be a larger figure in money terms than previously. It will probably be about the same in real terms.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Will the sum now being negotiated with the South Yemen People's Republic come out of the total aid budget, or will it come out of some other budget?

Mr. Prentice: The £12 million worth of aid which the Republic received, and is still receiving up to this month, was partly within the aid budget. It depended whether it was for civil or military purposes. We had better discuss what will happen in future when we know the outcome of the present negotiations.

Mr. Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the cost of aid to the British taxpayer, which is what matters to many of us, will increase, and that the increased overseas aid, which was specifically listed by the President of the Board of Trade among the reasons leading to devaluation, will be increased still further and thus create still further current account problems?

Mr. Prentice: First, the hon. Gentleman has not interpreted correctly the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Secondly, the money costs will be higher, but I should think that in balance of payments terms some of these developments are very helpful. It has been calculated that we get approximately 30s. worth of orders for every £1 we subscribe to the I.D.A. I think that the hon. Gentleman should think through the effects on the balance of payments before he makes remarks like that. If he is saying that the money must be found by the taxpayer, that is correct.

Mr. Onslow: Yes, I am.

Mr. Prentice: Aid represents a transfer of resources. It must be paid for. Of course, it represents an element of sacrifice by the donor country. But at the moment the sacrifice works out at about 1s. 5½d. a week for every person in this country, and I do not think that that is an unreasonable sum in relation to the scale of world poverty. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that it is unreasonable, he will have a chance to argue his case, but I am sure that most hon. Members on both sides of the House will disagree with him.
I should like to indicate briefly a few of the trends in our aid programme to which I pay particular attention and on which I wish to see growing emphasis placed in future. I have said that perhaps the most important job which falls on me and my Department is the efficient management of the programme. It is our


duty to get the maximum value for money—and I use the phrase "value for money" as meaning development which will help people.
This is one of the basic reasons why the Government were wise to establish the Ministry of Overseas Development instead of scattering the aid programme around a number of Departments. The new Ministry has been able to concentrate experience and expertise in one Department and to establish a strong, economic planning staff able to evaluate development and the relationship of our aid programmes to the development of the countries concerned. It is clear that this is already producing results in terms of greater effectiveness.
I should like to mention two aspects. First, we have evolved new techniques of project evaluation. I now have a high—level committee studying major new projects within the Department and reporting to me on them so that we can have a common set of criteria which governs our decisions about advancing money for new projects. One of our full—time advisers is concerned with following the progress of the projects and with liaising with people on the staff of our overseas missions, in the High Commissions or embassies concerned about the progress made.
The other development is that we have now operating two development divisions which are not based in this country: one in the Middle East, which has been going for some years, and one in the Caribbean area, which began its work a year ago. I was able to visit the Caribbean development division a few weeks ago and to see the very important impact it has on the affairs of that area. Not only is it providing the Ministry with a flow of information which is helping us to plan and assess our programme in that area, but it is becoming an important source of advice to the Government in the area. There are Ministers and officials visiting the office of the Caribbean development division in Barbados who come from all over the Caribbean. They are on the telephone asking for advice and asking whether someone can come over and help with a particular problem. This is a very practical and economical way of helping in a region of that kind.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am just back from convalescing in that part of the world. Will any of the projects for the future take into account the possibly great expansion of tourism in the Caribbean to the mutual advantage of those countries and this country?

Mr. Prentice: Clearly, tourism is a very important part of the development of those countries, and the British aid programme is geared to their development plans. To take a very small area in terms of population in the Caribbean, a good deal of private investment is taking place in the British Virgin Islands in relation to tourism which is being supported by infrastructure projects financed by my Department—the enlargement of the airport, improving the roads and other developments related to the potential growth of tourism as well as the general needs of the community. There are many other examples of that kind.
One thing which I wish to see increased is the support which this country is able to give to the development of family planning. The world population is increasing and will continue to increase for many years. It is increasing fastest in some of the poorest countries, partly for reasons which we would all welcome, such as the conquest of epidemic diseases, the growth of public health services, the fact that people are living longer and that more babies are surviving to become adults and have families of their own. This makes it all the more urgent that any development plan should include a policy for family planning.
It is very difficult for a member of a Government in one country to lecture other countries on precisely what they should do. One has to take into account religious factors and social attitudes and we must not be too dogmatic. For that reason there was very little discussion in United Nations Agencies and other places where development was discussed a year or two ago, but discussion has increased in the last few years. People generally have become less inhibited about this subject and we in this country did a little more to help than we have in the past.
We are making an annual grant of £50,000 to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and we are giving


technical advice to a number of Commonwealth countries when we are asked. We provide training in this country for a number of people when they ask for it. I propose to set up within the Ministry a new population bureau, which will be part of the Ministry but which will have a small expert staff which will be able to provide a focus for knowledge and work in this field. The total cost of this is very small—I think that it should be larger—but it will be very important in terms of the good that it can do.
I strongly support the view expressed often in the House that we should see over the years a shift in emphasis away from bilateral aid towards multilateral aid. I recognise that for many years to come there will be plenty of room for both. For many years probably the greater part of the aid programme will take a bilateral form.

Mr. Henry Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in the light of the Fletcher-Cooke Report on the working of the F.A.O.? The cost efficiency of the F.A.O. in the light of that Report looks very bad indeed.

Mr. Prentice: If one were to take a view of all the United Nations Agencies such as the World Bank and I.D.A. one would say that some are more efficient than others. Certainly. I think that a number of changes need to be made in the organisation of the F.A.O. I said this at the annual meeting, a few months ago, but there has been a new Director-General since the last meeting and he is taking urgent action to improve the efficiency of the organisation of the F.A.O. It has done a tremendous amount of good in the world in recent years and it can do more if its work becomes more efficient.
Multilateral organisations are better able to take a world view both of the needs in a particular problem and the availability of aid to meet them. Also, from the point of view of the recipient country itself the relationship is the furthest possible removed from any suggestion of neo-colonialism. Those of us who say that we want to strengthen the United Nations and the authority of world organisations have to put that policy into practice by backing world organisations and taking steps to increase their scope. The efficiency of the organisation is important. That is why I wel

comed the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark).
It would be wrong to load these organisations with more work than they can cope with. This is a slow process, but it is one which ought to be encouraged. Last year, 11 per cent. of the British aid programme went through multilateral agencies and in the current year I expect it to be about 15 per cent. The biggest element is replenishment of I.D.A. and there are other elements which represent a trend slowly by stages towards the use of other multilateral bodies.
There are two other matters I could mention. There is the importance of technical assistance in the programme and the growing emphasis on rural development, but I have discussed these matters with my right hon. Friend who is to wind up the debate and he has agreed to say something about them if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Before I conclude I wish to refer to the recent U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference in New Dehli. This is a big subject which would merit a debate on its own if business allowed it. My hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement on it recently and was questioned by hon. Members about it.
I do not want to go over the same ground, but I pose the question to the House and to myself: was the conference a failure? A number of people have suggested that it was and a number of heads of delegations at the end of the conference said that it was. My answer is a qualified no. It was a conference which inevitably led to a great deal of disappointment. The developing countries had met before hand at Algiers and produced the Charter of Algiers in which they made a list of demands—I think that is the right word—on donor countries and a list of proposals which they hoped would be made at the conference.
In the nature of things, most of these were disappointed. Given the preoccupation of the United States and the United Kingdom and other countries with balance of payments difficulties and with their economic problems, this was not a year in which a major advance could be expected either in terms of trade assistance or in terms of extra aid.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose——

Mr. Prentice: I have been on my feet for half an hour and I promised to be brief. I shall be finishing my speech in a few moments.
I return to the argument I deployed earlier about what we are doing and the pressure on donor countries to do more. I think that this was something which, in the nature of things, was bound to be resisted by the donor countries at a conference of this kind. Nevertheless, after many weeks of very detailed and tortuous arguments a number of advances were made—some on the trade side, to which my right hon. Friend referred in his statement.
On the aid side there were two specific things. On was that some progress was made over the vexed question of supplementary financial measures. This followed a proposal by Britain and Sweden at the first U.N.C.T.A.D. meeting that there should be new financial arrangements to help countries which suffer a fall in their earnings in their first years of independence. This matter dragged on for a long time and finally a resolution was passed at New Delhi which gave directions to the governmental group to produce a report by the summer of next year. During the discussion the attitudes of the countries towards this problem came together and some progress was made.
The other and larger question, the aid target, was redefined in the resolution which was passed in the last few days of the conference. The proposed aid target was 1 per cent. of national income. The new aid target agreed at New Delhi is 1 per cent. of the gross national product. I shall not weary the House with the technical differences between the two, but the change from one to the other means that the new target is about 25 per cent. above the old. This is a very important commitment. Clearly, its practical effect depends on if and when it is met, but it is very important that the countries concerned should have agreed to it.
Her Majesty's Government made clear at the conference that our first priority had to be the strengthening of our balance of payments and that we were not able to give a date when we could

meet the new target. But, clearly, we have an obligation, which I hope is recognised by both sides of the House, to use our best endeavours to achieve this new target as and when we can. I think that the discussion on this whole subject is too often conducted with a sense of hopelessness. The very fact that we have to talk about the appalling degree of poverty affecting two-thirds of the world sometimes leads us into the error of believing that no progress at all is taking place.
It is very important that we recognise that economic development does work and is working in many parts of the world. The 'sixties were designated by the General Assembly as the United Nations Development Decade, with a target of 5 per cent. annual rate of growth throughout the developing world. That 5 per cent. has not been achieved, but the average figure, in fact, is about 4½ per cent. This represents progress and, in many of the countries concerned, a much faster rate of progress than they have ever had before. Twenty countries have reached a progress rate of 6 per cent. or more. Nine of the developing countries will have doubled their gross national product during the 'sixties.
The countries that have done that have done it, first and foremost, by their own efforts; their own greater efforts have been the most important factor. But a flow of overseas aid of the right kind, intelligently and effectively used, has also played an important part in the process. We need to get a wider understanding of that in this country and a wider understanding, also, of the fact that this aid is not money which disappears, but money which is used constructively and has a real impact on the living standards of people.
I spoke earlier of the critics of our programme. I think that we in this House ought also to recognise that there is growing support in this country for an aid programme, particularly among young people. I would pay my tribute to organisations such as Christian Aid—and I remind the House that next week is Christian Aid Week, to which we can all contribute—Oxfam, War on Want, the United Nations Association and others which are having a growing impact, particularly on the younger generation. When they organise something in a school or college, young people respond to it


become interested and wonder what it is all about. As those young people grow up and become part of the adult population a growing number of people will be demanding of the Government of the day that we have a substantial aid programme—no doubt much more than we have at the moment. I was very glad to see that the youth organisations of the three main political parties got together a few weeks ago and issued a joint manifesto demanding that the Government do more in this respect.
Those of us in the House—and there are many on both sides—who see the importance of this subject have a particular duty to contribute to the public debate on these matters. With vigorous public concern and awareness of what the problems are, and with an increased amount of information going to our constituents, in that climate of opinion, this country can and will make an even bigger effort in the years ahead.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I too regret that the time allotted to this debate has had to be curtailed, particularly as we on this side, and indeed Members on all sides of the House, have been looking forward to it. We welcome the debate for two reasons. First, a considerable time has elapsed since this important subject was last debated. We are currently spending more than £2 million of the taxpayers' money annually and it is only right that the principles governing our overseas aid programmes and the way the money is spent should be examined and discussed in Parliament. In passing, may I say that I think there is a case for devising some new machinery of Parliamentary control whereby our aid programmes and perhaps the wider question of how we are discharging our responsibilities to our remaining colonial dependencies can be subjected to close and continuous scrutiny.
The second reason for welcoming this debate is that it provides an opportunity to establish clearly where we all stand on one of the most pressing and crucial issues of our time—namely, what to do, or whether we should do anything, about a situation in which, in strictly relative terms, the rich countries are getting richer and the poorer countries are getting poorer.
We start with the fact that, contrary to the high expectations of the United Nations when it instituted the Development Decade in 1960, the gap between the richer and the poorer nations is not being bridged. I understand that the annual increase alone in the per capita income of the advanced industrial nations of the world, of which ours is one, is about five times greater than the total per capita income of the so-called developing countries. The right hon. Gentleman talked quite correctly about the successes of the Development Decade. Brazil, I suppose, is one and Mexico another. But we are concerned here with the countries to which British aid is given, and there I fear the decade of development is in large measure fast becoming a decade of disillusionment.
We should recognise that there is grave danger in this situation. Across the world awareness is growing that for the first time in history man's inventiveness and skill, when properly organised, enable him to raise his fellows out of the rut of poverty. Knowledge knows no frontiers, and men whose fathers once meekly accepted the fact that hunger, sickness and early death were part of the natural order now know that this need not be so. They are impatient for change and, to use Adlai Stevenson's vivid phrase, they are caught up
in the revolution of rising expectations.
Yet if knowledge knows no frontiers, neither does it take much account of ideologies. In their different ways, both Western capitalism and Communism are making two ears of corn grow where one grew before; are concerned with improving material standards of living, and in large measure both are succeeding.
It seems inevitable that if the poorer peoples of the earth are not helped by the affluent West in their quest for a better life, they will turn elsewhere. We should never allow ourselves for one moment to forget that it is the crux of the Communist argument that this is precisely what they will do. On the other hand, if we apply our minds intelligently to the problem, there is no need for pessimism. This awakening of perhaps two-thirds of the human race, this revolution of rising expectations, is not merely a challenge; it holds within itself the seeds of infinite promise. The advanced industrial countries of the West, including ourselves, have everything to gain from efforts to raise the


living standards of the poorer peoples. Higher levels of consumption mean more trade, and more trade will bring greater prosperity for all. Moreover, there is no country in the world which stands to gain more than Britain because so high a proportion of our trade is with the developing countries.
So much for the need; so much for the challenge. But it is perhaps in the field of aid that the truism that all generalisations are dangerous is most apt. We are dealing here with the economies of 85 countries, all of them divergent in political, economic and geographical terms. We are dealing here with basic human needs and aspirations of many different kinds. We are dealing here with complex world economic and political cross-currents which it is given to very few to comprehend in toto. And so we are dealing with problems to which there is no simple solution or facile answer.
Of course, since we are practical men of politics, we must concern ourselves with the economic climate here in our own country. Obviously there has to be a limit to the amount of aid we can provide in any one year whatever the economic situation. If we are in an economic mess, as we are now, clearly there must be less money available than there would have been had our economy been flourishing. The Government admitted this when they cut aid in 1966—a cut which, I say sadly, ran contrary to the high promises which the party opposite had been making for many years.
Aid was also cut as a result of devaluation. I know that the Government deny that and say that aid has been one of the few fields of expenditure to escape the axe, but I would refer to the recent report of the Overseas Development Institute, which asserts that real aid was in fact cut, taking everything into account, by £8 million to £14 million a year. There is, of course, a strong argument that if we must tighten our belts, aid also should suffer. I think it was the Prime Minister who said loftily that nothing was sacrosanct, but the economic crisis which made that necessary was of the Government's own making.
Leaving aside the size of the aid programme, we should be clear about the

principles governing the giving of aid. I hope that that is what the debate will be about. One of the most significant developments of the post-war world has been what I would describe as extraterritorial acceptance of economic responsibility—starting with the brilliant and imaginative Marshall Plan which put a war-devastated Europe on its feet, and the Colombo Plan, which owed so much to the vision and energy of the late Ernest Bevin; continuing with the Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D., the two U.N.C.T.A.D.'s, and innumerable international organisations and bilateral arrangements. Generally speaking, the richer industrial and developed nations have accepted some economic responsibility for their less fortunate fellow nations.
The motivation behind this acceptance of responsibility is often mixed. It varies greatly from country to country and from year to year. Idealism and self-interest are intermingled. In so far as we want to get the argument about aid into the clear, let me say that there may be some danger in stressing idealism too much at the expense of honest self-in-terest. This is not only because the developing nations do not welcome the overtones of charity which a purely idealistic approach engenders. It is also because it is more likely to be discarded when the shoe pinches. Nothing is more disillusioning than that. This is a fact of life and cannot be ignored. I am not in any way discounting the value and civilising influence of idealism in deciding priorities in the use of economic resources. What I stress is that in this case idealism and self-interest combine to lead to the same general conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman quoted President Kennedy's inaugural address in 1961. The President also pointedly added this:
 If a free society cannot help the many who are poor it cannot save the few who are rich.
A positive approach to aid or, as I prefer to call it, development assistance has always been Conservative policy in the past, and it remains so today.

Mr. Ridley: Has my hon. Friend considered that we have to borrow at high rates of interest across the exchanges to produce money to give or lend in aid? Does he think that it is wise to do that? Should not we leave it to those who


have the money available to lend to us to lend on their own account to developing countries?

Mr. Braine: I wish it were quite as simple as that. If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument, he will see that the fact that we are in difficulties at the moment in one respect should not cause us to take a shortsighted and selfish attitude about our long-term obligations and our long-term interests. Perhaps this is the point at which I might define some of the reasons for maintaining a British interest in development assistance.
Perhaps the best way to approach the question is to examine what would happen if we were to take my hon. Friend's advice and cut off all aid overnight, and this example was, indeed, followed by others. The total flow of official financial resources to the developing countries from the developed countries in 1966 came to nearly 6½ billion dollars. That may be a drop in the bucket, because that is all it is, to the rich countries; but to the poor countries it means irreplaceable technical assistance in raising food production, in eradicating disease and illiteracy, in sparking new economic activity, and in bringing new life and hope where often only poverty and misery obtained before.

Mr. Onslow: Is not my hon. Friend falling into the quite common and extraordinary error of presuming that, if all official aid were cut off, there would be no private aid to take its place? If taxation were reduced to correspond with the reduction in official expenditure, there might be more private money available and put to better use at that.

Mr. Braine: I am half way with my hon. Friend. If he will allow me to develop my argument, he will find that I shall say something about this; only now I shall take just a little longer about it. The fact of the matter is that Britain could not cut off all official aid without immediate repercussions being felt, especially if our example were to be followed by others. Let us consider the effect upon Britain, which is more dependent than any other major industrial country upon overseas trade. In the developing countries themselves economic depression would spread—unevenly per-

haps, but it would spread very quickly. Some countries inside the Commonwealth are receiving budgetary aid at the moment. For them a cutting off of aid would be complete catastrophe. Their governments would collapse, and chaos would intervene. Presumably, such normal trade as we do with those countries would come to an end.
The effects would be felt immediately in Britain, and more sharply than elsewhere, because, as I have said, we do a higher proportion of our trade with developing countries than almost any of our major competitors. Nor would the effects be confined to the economic sphere. The political repercussions would be serious, and they would be immediate. We must recognise that economic, like political, inter-dependence is now a fact of life.
Given that development assistance is, as I believe that it is, essential, can we be satisfied that it is being given and directed in the best way? Here I begin perhaps to find some common ground with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), because I believe that here there are grounds for criticism. I am not referring to the arguments for and against an increase in multilateral, as opposed to bilateral, assistance or for project as opposed to non-project aid. I believe that each case must be viewed on its merits. Within the present allocation of aid I do not believe that there is much room for tying more aid, unless we were to cut down on technical assistance. Any examination of the programme would show that, if we did that, it would cause difficulty, and even hardship, in many areas.
In an ideal world general untying of aid by everyone would undoubtedly be to the British advantage, since we would probably gain more export orders than we would lose. As it is, in the past we have, as the right hon. Gentleman said, secured 30s. worth of exports for every £ contributed to the funds of the International Development Association. But we do not live in an ideal world, and in the Present international climate it is unlikely that agreement would be reached for the further untying of aid.
In these circumstances, it is only sensible that we should aim at the maximum benefit to the developing countries, together with the minimum loss to our own economy. In giving aid, therefore,


we should have regard not only to the way in which it is used by the recipient countries but also to what I would call the totality of British interests. There is no virtue in unnecessary sacrifice. A masochistic delight in the pain of giving may satisfy the conscience of those with highly developed guilt complexes, but it has no place in a rational policy.
Here I come to one of the cruxes of what should be British aid policy. Surely what matters to the developing countries is the total flow of resources to them and the way in which this can quicken their economic life in all its aspects. The fact is that about one-half of the total flow of aid from Britain to the developing world consists of private investment. This costs the taxpayer nothing and it can be of actual benefit to our balance of payments, since it brings a return to the investor. I was very interested to see from a Parliamentary Answer given on 27th March that the President of the Board of Trade said that of the £244 million of private overseas direct investment made by Britain last year, only a small proportion involved the outflow of new funds. So we had virtually no money going out and interest coming in.
It is true that the cost to the balance of payments of official overseas aid is much less than is commonly supposed. About two-thirds of it comes back to Britain in the form of exports. In 1966 about £58 million came back in interest on loans and repayment of capital out of the gross figure of £209 million.
I know that there are complicating factors. It does not follow that goods supplied under aid programmes could not be sold elsewhere; one cannot be sure about this. It is true that official aid must represent some drain on the balance of payments. But surely it must be to our economic advantage if the proportion of the total outflow of resources is tilted more towards the flow of private capital?
I recognise, of course, that it is not as easy as all that. Official aid and private investment are complementary; both are required—official aid for developing the infrastructures and providing technical assistance, and private investment for developing raw materials, food production and starting new manufacturing industry. Nor can one generalise. In

some countries, in a very early stage of development, private investment would not meet the requirement. Here, at least in the early stages of development, official aid is essential, and in all developing countries, even those reaching the point of take-off, technical assistance is a continuing need, although the contribution to technical education which private overseas corporations are making or could make is often overlooked.
What co-ordination is there between the Ministry of Overseas Development and private enterprise in this country? Was it not extraordinary that in his opening speech at U.N.C.T.A.D. the President of the Board of Trade made no reference to the rôole of private investment and the valuable part it could play in the developing countries. That omission has been defended on the grounds that private investment did not feature much at U.N.C.T.A.D. What a poor excuse, coming from the representative of one of the world's greatest trading and investing nations! Did we not have the comprehensive and fascinating report made by Dr. Stikker for the conference, which made a number of far-reaching recommendations for stimulating private investment? Why did not the Government insist that this matter be given the priority it deserves? We require an answer.
The sorry fact is that the flow of British private investment to the developing world decreased in 1966 as compared with 1965. The sorry fact is that Britain, when compared with other developed countries, has made virtually no effort to conclude treaties concerning the treatment of private investment in developing countries. Take the question of insurance against political risk. Britain is one of the few great trading countries with no scheme of this nature. Why? Why should British firms be put at a serious disadvantage compared with their American, German and Japanese competitors, who are covered by bilateral insurance schemes? We require an answer to this as well.
I am well aware that some developing countries are fearful of becoming too dependent on foreign enterprise. Equally, potential investors are easily frightened off where there are possibilities of expropriation. These are precisely the sort of fears on both sides which could be


removed if investment treaties were made with the developing countries, and the wise advice of Dr. Stikker were taken.
For those of us who attach high importance to the Commonwealth relationship it has been sad to see, as we have recently, the actions of Tanzania and Zambia, which must have an adverse effect on the flow of private investment to those countries. If, however, we are to continue to give aid, it is reasonable that there should be some protection for British investors. Clear-cut rules should be agreed between both sides which would be to the advantage of all concerned.
In short, it is our view on this side of the House that the Ministry of Overseas Development should be concerned not only with technical assistance and other forms of official aid but with the wider task of bringing every kind of expertise, especially that provided by private enterprise, to the service of the developing countries. I am not convinced that it is. Lord Cromer's Report shows only too clearly the lack of co-ordination in these matters and the need
of a readily and clearly identifiable point of focus in the governmental machine to which the industrialist, banker and others can turn to seek support and advice.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about setting up a high-level committee. We were delighted to hear this, but who composes it? Certainly, there is need for new machinery which can bring together the C.B.I., the B.N.E.C., Lord Cromer's Committee, the City, the C.D.C. and the Government. In our view, there should be no dichotomy between the public and private sectors. Given the right kind of machinery, official aid could act as a catalyst to promote new avenues of opportunity in developing countries for private enterprise especially in joint ventures between ourselves and the nationals of those countries. In the long run this reduces the need for official aid and releases resources for activities which the private sector cannot undertake. I believe that an approach of this kind would dispel a great deal of the hostility to aid which one finds in business circles in this country.
There is, too, a need for greater coordination of policy and effort in another matter. Aid, vitally important as an

instrument for improving and diversifying the economies of the developing countries, cannot do the trick alone. We know only too well that falls in commodity prices in any one year can offset many times the aid a particular country is receiving. These countries need an expansion of their trade and easier access to markets. We must recognise that their trading pattern, like ours, has been changing. The importance of their raw materials has been declining while their exports of manufactures has often been hampered by inability to compete with the products of advanced industrial countries. Because of their relatively weak position, the terms of trade have shifted against them. Ironically, too, it was richer countries that derived the greatest benefit from the recent substantial tariff cuts of the Kennedy Round. In our view, therefore, trade and aid are two sides of the same medal.
Finally, we should ask ourselves what is the aim of development assistance. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to reduce the disproportion between the living standards of the developing and the developed world? Are we aiming more specifically to bring the developing countries to the point of economic takeoff, or just trying to salve our consciences?
The two U.N.C.T.A.D. conferences were attempts at defining needs, but were successful only in the sense that a confrontation between the rich and poor nations was achieved. At such conferences there is so much special pleading, so much bargaining, so much controversy, that this is not, perhaps, the best method of taking a cool and dispassionate look at what can and should be done over, say, the next two decades.
Therefore, I commend to the Government the speech of Mr. George Woods, the President of the World Bank, in Sweden last October. He proposed that the developed countries should invite a dozen or more leading experts to study the results of the past 20 years of development assistance, assess the results, clarify the errors, and propose the policies which will work more effectively in the future. He quoted the example of the body under Lord Franks which preceded the highly successful Marshall Plan, but added his impression that one of the


principal obstacles was not so much the physical difficulty of making more resources available as a scepticism about the general effectiveness of aid. Mr. Woods is absolutely right. We should not underestimate the scepticism that exists. Many of my constituents do not understand how we can provide aid when we are borrowing ourselves. That was the question my hon. Friend asked——

Mr. Prentice: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. In an effort to cut down what I had to say, one of the bits that I crossed out of my notes was that reiterating what I had said before, that the Government support Mr. George Woods' proposal and have been in touch, and are still in touch, with others about implementing it.

Mr. Braine: I am delighted to hear that, because I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he had been doing about it.
We must face the fact that there is a general scepticism in the country among those who say, quite properly, "How can we give aid when we are borrowing money ourselves, and why give aid at all to countries which use a stick to beat us with at every opportunity in the United Nations?". There is need for a new appraisal of aid, for a study of the lessons of the last two decades and for an appreciation of the benefits to donor and recipient alike.
I was at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference at Kampala last year, just after Mr. Woods spoke. Ministers from developing countries told me that they welcomed his initiative. It was interesting to hear what they had to say. They welcomed his initiative not only because there was a need to take a fresh look at aid but because they themselves considered that the recipient countries should apply new disciplines in regard to the use of aid. I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are looking into Mr. Woods' proposal.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the trouble with development assistance at the moment is that it is run on an ad hoc basis. Developing countries do not know what aid they can expect from one year to the next, al-

though they know that they will be required to devote a high proportion of any financial aid they receive to the repayment of loans. Contributions are often made in response to immediate or short-term needs. There is no real long-term strategy behind the aid given by this country or any other. Moreover, although the I.D.A. fund has been replenished, it has only been done by allowing the Americans to tie their contribution to American goods because of their balance of payments difficulties.

Mr. Prentice: The agreement is that there will be arrangements for postponement of drawing down contributions from a country in balance of payments difficulties. This was done at the American request. However, all aid through the I.D.A., once it is there, will still be untied to any country's goods.

Mr. Braine: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
I do not pretend that there is an easy answer to any of these problems. But they do underline the need to take a completely new look at aid generally, beginning with the imaginative proposal made by Mr. Woods. We need too to take a much clearer look at our own aid programme to see what we are trying to do and how we hope to achieve it.
We on this side want a much more businesslike approach. Instead of talking about aid—a much misunderstood term—let us talk about development assistance, for what we are concerned with mainly is promoting development and economic growth. We believe that the Government must enter into a working partnership with private endeavour. If aid policy is to get the approval of the nation, it must have regard to the totality of British interests so that it can be directed, as far as possible, where it is most effective in promoting mutual advantage.
If the debate is to serve any useful purpose, let the message go out by all means that we recognise that the developed world has responsibilities to the poorer nations and at the same time not try to conceal from our own people that, in the short term, development assistance means some sacrifices on our part, but against this let us make it plain that it is much to our long-term economic and political advantage to help those less fortunate than ourselves.
Finally, to excite and to hold the interest of our people in the adventure—for that is what it is—of overseas development, let us make it plain that the case for development assistance is not based on bribery, or fear or charity, but on a common sense realisation that the world is now so small that extremes of wealth and poverty are no longer acceptable, are unhealthy, and cannot be ignored, and that it is in the interests of all of us to reduce them.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: There are some of us—and this is not confined to one side of the House—who believe that the present emotive debate on the colour issue is linked with the giving of aid to developing countries. Indeed, the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is, in some ways, a clash of colour. The richer nations tend to be white and the poorer non-white. We cannot conduct our lives as though the problem did not exist. Over the next few decades, the greatest problem facing the world win be that of enabling those who have not the resources to have a richer and fuller life and we cannot isolate ourselves front it. It ill becomes anyone to encourage hostility towards aid giving, and I wish that they would face up to the moral, political and economic issues involved and try to deal with them realistically.
Of course, no one would suggest, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braille) has just said, that we should help beyond our means. We cannot help ourselves, let alone others, if we put ourselves in a state of bankruptcy. But does anyone suggest that we cannot afford l½d. in the £ as our contribution towards helping to solve the problems of poverty in the midst of plenty? Two-thirds of the people of the world live in circumstances of starvation and squalor and their lives are only relieved by premature death. Morally, there is an overwhelming case for us all to do everything possible to help those less fortunate than ourselves.
Of course, many people are facing this. As my right hon. Friend has said, there are all the voluntary organisations and the churches which are doing such excellent work. There are the British volunteers overseas—young people who go abroad to help others, thus spreading the best traditions of this country. Their conduct

is exemplary and they are able to undo much of the harm done to the British image during the struggle for independence by the newly emerging countries. They come back better equipped in knowledge and experience to serve our country. Incidentally, they have helped, in my judgment, to consolidate and strengthen the Commonwealth. On my own behalf and, I am sure, that of everyone else, I should like to thank these young people who are doing so much to help to promote peace and security in the world.
I have said that moral leadership is very important and I am fortified in this by an experience I had when talking to a leading diplomat in London. He said, "It is a pity that Britain cannot do more to help a world in distress." I said, "We have to face the fact that Britain no longer has the military might or the economic resources to enable us to give the leadership we used to give." He replied, "You are making a mistake. Britain has one quality which it can give to the world—moral leadership." I believe that giving aid to those less fortunate than ourselves is the kind of leadership by which we can make the greatest contribution today.
I said earlier that 1½d. in the £ of our national income is the cost to the nation of giving aid. Actually, it does not cost as much as that because, of the £205 million which is in the overseas aid budget, about £60 million comes back in repayment. This means that there are substantial returns to the taxpayers. The aid takes many forms, in grants, loans and bilateral arrangements with developing countries and in contributions to multilateral agencies. We assist the British Council and there is also the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which is a very successful business undertaking and brings back large returns to this country. All of these bodies are conducted under the aegis of the aid programme.
There are the experts and the technical services and the other items which help to raise the cost of the aid programme, but the cost in foreign exchange is not as high as is sometimes thought. It has been calculated that about one-third of the cost of the aid programme results in a burden on our foreign exchange.
The Minister said that just under 90 per cent. of aid was given on a bilateral basis and more than 10 per cent. to the multilateral agencies. It is suggested by some that money given for aid purposes is wasted, that some grandoise scheme is developed and that the aid is wasted in other directions. Those who say that do not know the facts. As the former Minister, it was my responsibility to conduct negotiations with other Governments. We decide the level of aid at the very beginning. We also say how we will finance a particular part of a country development. We agree the terms and schedules and then arrangements are made for letting and supervising the contracts. Our own experts make an evaluation of the scheme to be undertaken.
The aid which we give is concerned mainly with agriculture and irrigation and, in its support, electricity, communications, roads, ports and railways, and scientific and technical experts and teachers are provided to assist in the development. I sometimes feel that there is too much emphasis on the supply of teachers, that some countries place too much reliance on teachers from Britain when teachers in their own country should be trained to teach their own people. The kind of education provided by teachers from our country tends to encourage too many indigenous people to seek the kinds of jobs which as yet are not available, and this in turn tends to discontent in the overseas country. The wealth of Britain came not from the academics and white collar workers, but from the skilled craftsmen and labourers who were able to use available resources.
When I was at the Ministry, I tried to encourage the extension of a service to provide for sending overseas craftsmen and skilled labourers to show less developed countries how to help in building up their economies. I was pleased to have the opportunity to open two centres in Colombia. In one, foundry workers showed the men of Colombia how to do foundry work, and that was a much more solid contribution towards building up the economy than any kind of lecture, however valuable it might have been. Another example of practical help was the way in which some fine British sheep were sent to Colombia to be crossed with indigenous sheep.
In addition, the indigenous people were shown the shearing of sheep and how the yarn was made and the woollen fabrics produced. That does more to create affluence in that part of Colombia than other methods which might have been employed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who was entrusted with this kind of development, will be able to say that this kind of scheme is being still further explored and developed.
It has already been said that aid helps to lay the foundation of later trade. This is most important to Britain, because we are a great trading nation. Aid helps to promote exports of plant and equipment. It ensures supplies of replacements and spares, and it enables us to sustain a scale of work and a quality of product competitive with other countries fortunate enough to have a much larger home market than we have. It also provides us with an intimate knowledge of markets and prospective markets, and it gives us the opportunity to carry out research on a world-wide basis. It means ultimately that people who have used British goods and found them to be of good quality and value, or who have been trained to buy British, will seek to place orders in Britain for a long time ahead.
I am delighted to hear that there is to be a greater contribution to the multilateral agencies under the aegis of the United Nations. Bilateral aid creates an over-sensitive relationship between benefactor and recipient and perpetuates the struggle between East and West.
The Colombo Plan is a good example of how by bringing together donors and recipients on an equal basis suspicion of each other's motives can be reduced, and it contributes to the best interests of both. Bilateral aid tends to be the worst form of aid, because the countries giving it want it to be tied aid. This damages both the giver and the receiver in the long run. It is short sighted and it will slow down the development of world trade and aggravate existing differences between developed and less developed countries.
As an illustration, the interests of India and Britain are damaged by the tied aid which is given to India by the United States. The I.C.I., which happens to be a constituency interest of mine, has always supplied fertilisers to India at competitive rates, and India has been well served.


However, because of the tied aid, the Indians are having to pay for fertilisers prices higher than those which they would have to pay to I.C.I.
Another indication of how Britain benefits from multilateral trade comes from the World Bank and its infrastructure, the International Development Association. For every £100 which we put in, we get in return about £130 worth of services and goods. As a great trading nation, it is in Britain's interests to do all we can to strengthen the multilateral agencies.
It has already been said that the struggle today is not so much of ideologies as between the haves and the have-nots. It was my good fortune in 1963 to go to the Soviet Union when I had the opportunity to discuss aid. I suggested that the Russians, the Americans, the British and the other developed nations should contribute generously to the United Nations. Unless we do this, those who happen to be nonwhite will point to the standards of living of the British and the Americans and to the Russians trying to overtake them and if a time comes for a struggle to take place they will not distinguish between the white Russian, the white Englishman and the white American. I hope that all of us who are living in the privileged section of the world will do what we can to help others before they organise by force to take that which they cannot secure by peaceful means.
There is one other question which cannot be ignored in connection with the developing world, and it is basic to the whole problem. It is a question of the world population and its excessive rate of growth. It was Malthus who said that all species of plants and animals, including man, tend to increase faster than the means of subsistence. The checks on a growing population, as the Minister mentioned, such as epidemics and wars, are fortunately, now coming to an end. We do not want that kind of check. But checks have to be made.
We have to face the fact that a hungry man lacks the strength to work. He is not capable of resisting the inroads of disease. A hungry woman cannot bear a healthy child and nuture it to maturity. This calls for family planning, and I am delighted to hear that this is being tackled energetically within the Department. I had an opportunity of starting the investigation and urged that something should

be done. One of the first decisions that I took on becoming Minister was to say that family planning should be looked at responsibly, as part of the aid programme. We have to take a pride in the knowledge that there are those of us on both sides of the House who insist on humanity and goodwill being shown towards the deprived people of the world.
Poverty, like peace, is indivisible. In the early days of our industrial development, we found that epidemics were no respecters of persons. Insanitary conditions in the poor quarters of our cities were a danger to everyone. Therefore, the rich were, very reluctantly, forced to support and encourage measures safeguarding the health of the community as a whole. In the same way, we cannot have a world half rich and half poor. Misery, disease and illitracy anywhere are a danger to us all. To fail in our duty to the poorer countries constitutes not only a reproach to us all, to our humanity, but a serious threat to the peace and security of the world.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: A total of 121 nations were represented at the recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which took place in New Delhi from April to March of this year. I was extremely disappointed at the outcome of the Conference. It was a Conference of procrastination and anti-climax. Some of the things which seemed to come out of it were the caucus-like behaviour of both rich and poor countries, failure to agree on general trade preferences to developing countries and the principle—if one can go by the reports of the Conference—that as long as no agreements were so binding that they had to be implemented the countries concerned were prepared to accept them.
Perhaps it would be going a little too far to say that it was a flop, but it would be just to say that it further damaged the relationship between developed and developing countries. Certain agreements were reached. There was an agreement reached to increase the export earnings of the developing countries by lower tariffs and giving them higher prices there was an agreement to promote their industrialisation by more technical aid and equipment and there was an agreement to accelerate their rates of economic


growth, to improve liquidity, make capital more easily available, and improve training, technical aid and intermediate aid of one sort or another.
Perhaps the most outstanding single achievement of the Conference was the establishment of a Special Committee on Preferences as a subsidiary organ of the Trade and Development Board. In practice this may not achieve very much. The first meeting of this Committee is not to be held until November, and the second will not be held until the first part of 1969. It is all going to take a very long time. Certain measures which were taken seem to have been extremely limited. There was a declaration on trade expansion, and the Conference reaffirmed trade expansion and economic integration among developing countries and the need to make a contribution towards their economic growth.
There was a declaration on the world food problem, urging developing countries to pay special attention to the agricultural sector in their economic planning. There was another resolution, in which the Conference asked countries participating in east-west trading to continue efforts to expand their trade. There was also a resolution, adopted towards the end of the Conference, urging governments of developed countries to avoid exchange restrictions on tourism. These were all very disappointing. Most of these things and facts were well known in advance and it is hardly surprising that the President of the Conference, Mr. Dinesh Singh, India's Minister of Commerce, noted that the Conference had not fulfilled the hopes expected of it, and said that instead of negotiations with a view to international co-operation, there had been confrontation and bargaining.
Moreover at the time of the Session, he said, an unusually large number of tensions and conflicts had clouded the international scene and this naturally had also affected the working of the Conference. It is hardly surprising that in his closing statement the Secretary General of U.N.C.T.A.D., Raul Prebisch, commented that:
…a great vacuum has been left in our task 
inasmuch as the Conference had failed to prepare a strategy of development for

the second Development Decade. This reflects the disappointment that I have heard expressed by people whom I have met and talked to about the Conference, and in the many letters which I have received.
I would like to point to the failures, and suggest some of the things that might be done. I have no doubt that the outcome of the Conference was not a disappointment to certain people, possibly to the merchants of the "Backing Britain" movement who no doubt regard overseas aid and development as a form of charity which we cannot afford. I put it to the House that it is nothing of the sort. It is not charity. At its very worst, overseas aid and development is a form of insurance. At its best it is a moral obligation. I think of the cotton industry of Lancashire and the jute industry of Dundee, and how both these two massive industries in the past were built on the under-recoupment of the producers of primary products overseas.
At its lowest this is a form of insurance for our children, because if the widening gap between the poor and the wealthy countries is permitted to go on widening at its present rate, the rift may be so great in 20 years' time that it will be impossible to heal, and the only way it can be relieved will be by massive cataclysm, some use of force which will involve young people the world over. I certainly hope that it will never reach that sort of situation.
I would like to underline the point already made by the Front Benches on both sides, that we should regard overseas aid as a form of enlightened self-interest. We should decide in our own minds what we should aim at, what we should give and exactly how we are to try and achieve this. I was a little disturbed to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) who visited the United Nations less than six months ago, that apparently this country is falling behind in its contributions to the United Nations development programme. I would like to hear from the Minister in his reply whether this is the case. I was very relieved to hear the statement that the Government appear to support the view that we should have a target of 1 per


cent. of gross national product as our aim for overseas aid.
If I may bore the House with a few statistics, the average income in the richer countries—that is, in Europe, North America and Russia, down in the Antipodes, South Africa and Japan—will, according to calculations, rise from 1,300 dollars per annum to over 3,000 dollars per annum over the next 20 years. In the poorer countries it will only rise from an average of 133 dollars to 255.
By 1935 the average United States citizen will, therefore, earn 30 times as much as the average Indian citizen. The dangers are obvious. The present terms of trade are tipping the balance against the poorer countries. This is a vicious circle, as has been pointed out, that prevents the poorer countries from creating the wealth that provides the food, the energy and the initiative to create further wealth. If it is allowed to persist, the dangers will be incalculable in years to come.
I believe I am right in saying that Britain, in terms of percentage of national income, is about fourth in Europe in her contributions. We come somewhere after France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Those figures were taken from 1965. The figure was 1·17 per cent. of national income compared with 1·88 per cent. for France. I was surprised to see in the list of figures that Canada, a wealthy country that is growing rapidly, apparently contributed only 0·43 per cent. of her national income.

Mr. Goodhart: Was this before the Liberal Government came to power?

Mr. Davidson: This was before the Liberal Government came to power. These figures are for 1965. Canada's contribution was lower than any in Europe. This was a percentage of national income, not a percentage of gross national product.
It is also interesting to observe—although it may be slightly misleading—that the war in Vietnam costs the United States 82 million dollars per day. If this could be put straight into the Mekong Delta project, it would pay for the reclamation of 150,000 acres of agricultural land a day. Put in different terms, so that non-farmers might better com-

prehend, it would pay for the establishment and building of 1,000 schools per day, each capable of taking 50 pupils. This is what could be achieved if the money spent on maintaining the war in Vietnam were put into more constructive channels.
We acknowledge that private enterprise plays its part in aid and development. I understand that the United Kingdom is the fourth largest investor, the first three being the United States, France and Italy. Having said what I have about Vietnam, it is fair to say that the United States are far and away the biggest overall donors of overseas aid both in the private and public sectors.
The question of the advantages of bilateral aid, on the one hand, and multilateral aid, on the other, has been raised. The British programme is overwhelmingly bilateral, but the percentage of multilateral aid is fast growing. Most developed countries allocate a higher proportion of multilateral aid than we do. Scandinavian countries contribute something over 50 per cent. of their contribution in the form of multilateral aid. The Communist countries, on the other hand, rive very little in the form of multilateral aid. They put almost the whole proportion of their aid through bilateral channels.
I suggest certain steps on common aid and co-operation which we might take. We should give priority to those countries whose economic significance justifies major international effort. It would be right to announce proposed aid in advance for the coming year and to stick to it. We should develop much closer relations with the World Bank for this purpose. It has already expressed its willingness to finance development. We might make a contribution by placing economic staff in British diplomatic missions overseas where they can be used for channelling aid both economically and aptly in the place to which they are posted. We should also make certain that the countries to whom aid is being channelled know what is available, because in some cases they do not know what they can get.
We are right to aim at 1 per cent. of gross national product. This should preferably be without conditions and without interest and preferably, as I have


said, through multilateral agencies. If my calculations are correct, this means that over a period of time we should raise our sights considerably from the present figure of £205 million per annum to about £350 million per annum. It might be apt to point out in passing that this is less than a third of the revenue from tobacco duty which this country collects annually.
We might also consider sending more aid to South-East Asia and Latin America. Our present concentration is on the Commonwealth and Commonwealth dependents. About 80 per cent. of the aid we give goes in that direction. If all developed countries increased their target to 1 per cent. of gross national product this would achieve £1,500 million per annum in foreign exchange to developing countries, which is what they could usefully use at the present time. Anything more than that might at this moment be surplus to their requirements.
Should there be international co-operation in this sphere or should there be competition? I am afraid that there is competition, whether we like it or not. One of the most disappointing features of the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference was the failure of the Communist countries to co-operate with other developed countries in the aid programme. In this respect I should like to quote from a publication which states:
The delegation from the developing states can hardly have left the conference table under any illusion that the Socialist countries of Eastern Europe will not shrink from the logic of their constant assertion that they do not, in the words of a Soviet delegate, bear either moral or material responsibility for the grave economic situation of developing countries.
In other words, they do not accept this responsibility.
Regarding the statement on increased aid to developing countries: On this statement the Soviet delegate asked for an extra section to be added stating that the document expressed the concerted view of the market economy countries and the developing countries and, as follows naturally from that, not the view of the Communist countries.
The Soviet group abstained on the major aid resolution recommending that developed countries should aim at a minimum net transfer of financial resources to developing countries equivalent to 1 per cent. of gross national product. It seems they did very little to co-operate.
At this point I draw the Minister's attention to a few statistics which should be well known to the House. It is obvious that the Communist countries are using their aid as a tool of foreign policy. In the period 1954 to 1966 they sent 45 per cent. to Asia, 35 per cent. to the Middle East, 16 per cent. to Africa, and only 4 per cent. to Latin America. By 1967 the emphasis had changed completely although their total contribution per annum had dropped slightly. To Africa they sent 41 per cent. as against 16 per cent. previously. To Latin America they sent 37 per cent. as against 4 per cent. previously. To the Middle East they sent only 10 per cent., and to Asia only 8 per cent. There was a remarkable shift in emphasis of which we should take note.
I shall not bore the House with a list of the major recipients, but certain countries have received rather more in aid from the Communist countries than they have from us. I have in mind to mention a few, Guinea, Mali, Afghanistan, Burma, Ceylon, Nepal, Iran and Iraq. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether there is any special policy of not sending aid to those countries in anything like the quantity that it has been provided by the Communist countries.
I propose now to stress what I think needs to be done if we are to approach the figure of 1 per cent. of gross national product, to see that it is fairly and properly distributed, and to see that U.N.C.T.A.D. fulfils its proper functions. I have mentioned that capital is to be made more easily liquid, and more easily obtainable, and I think that I should stress the importance of agriculture. We know that one-fifth of the world is starving, and that three-fifths suffer from malnutrition, facts which have been quoted several times during the debate, but there are reasons for agriculture being important, quite apart from the rapid increase in the world population.
It is the dominant sector in the economies of many developing countries and therefore it is by far the most direct way of raising living standards. In India 75 per cent. of the population is dependent on agriculture of a sort. A rise in rural incomes is needed to expand the market for manufactures. It is no good expanding the market for manufactures unless a preponderance of the population in the


rural areas can afford to buy them. It is a source of saving for investment in industry. It is also a contribution to the foreign exchange earnings of these developing countries which can then use the savings to finance imports of capital and other goods. Finally, it is a way in which the skills of a vast labour force can be increased at fairly small expense by the use of modern tools, implements, fertilisers, and seeds.
I think that in future when there are U.N.C.T.A.D. conferences to which we send delegations it would be a great advantage if we could have more than just the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Overseas Development represented. It is right that the functions of overseas aid have been concentrated within one Ministry, but many others are involved—for example, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Technology, and I think that it would be a good thing if we could send a composite delegation representing all the Ministries involved in aid and development overseas. It should be led try the most suitable junior or senior Minister from any of the Ministries concerned who is available at the time.
The present system of economic international relations is rather biased against the developing countries. There is a need for a comprehensive plan of mixed remedial measures. On the question of primary products, we have to tackle the question of tariffs and lower duties. In certain cases quotas may be appropriate, and in certain cases we must consider removing subsidies on our own competitive products. I think that we should seriously consider raising commodity prices when we are purchasing primary products from developing countries. We should consider, too, various ways of providing supplementary finance. The S.D.R. scheme will be of great assistance in that respect. We should give greater publicity to and promote the exports of developing countries, and, as I have said, reduce the tariffs. We should raise our sights to at least 1 per cent. of gross national product, and that could embrace income from tourism and transport.
The figure of £1,500,000 per annum is a rough figure which the developing countries could usefully use now. That would be the output if the developed countries were to raise their contributions to 1 per cent. of gross national product.

There is a great need for emphasis to be laid on multilateral aid, on international schemes, and on fairer distribution. There is a need for greater technical assistance, particularly in agriculture and birth control.
We need to increase trade with the developing countries and adjust the terms of trade to overcome the balance which is tipping against them. We should note that only half the 6 to 12 age group in the developing countries are being educated, and this is obviously a crying need.
Finally, the reorganisation and coordinating function of U.N.C.T.A.D. must be stressed so that the result of the next conference is not so disappointing as that of the last.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. James Tinn: It is time that a short speech was made in this truncated debate, and I will do my best to make it. Like the Minister and other hon. Members, I have seen the need for overseas development and the work which is being done, and I should have liked to speak about the Ministry's work on both aspects, but I will confine myself to two main points. First, the second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, as was said in The Scotsman, disappointed even those who had expressed only the most cautious hopes. Perhaps its most substantial achievement was the consumption of 55 tons of documents, from which a lesson could be learned about its procedure.
One of the ominous features of the conference was the change from a polarisation based in ideology to one based on North and South, the haves and the have-nots. This is a portent for the future which we cannot disregard. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), who was the Minister, referred to tied aid applied either solely to goods of the donor country, or, even more tightly, to particular products from that country. I entirely share his and the Minister's views about the desirability of untied aid, but I am inclined to agree also with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) that we must be practical and realistic.
I draw particular attention to the position of British fertiliser firms which have been heavily penalised by the prevalent


foreign practice, at least of our major competitors, of tying aid. If we were to retaliate, this would not necessarily harm the receiving nations because they—particularly India, which will receive the largest amount of our aid this year—will probably be compelled to take their entire consumption of nitrogenous fertiliser from the United States at higher prices. And India takes 38 per cent. of the total of all fertiliser sold to developing countries.
The United States has increased the amount of its aid which is tied to fertiliser to no less than 300 million dollars. Three-quarters of the nitrogenous fertiliser sold to developing countries is sold through this process. I have no thought here of exploiting the developing countries through restricting some of our aid to purchases of fertiliser from this country. Our fertiliser industry is second to none and is well able to compete on equal terms, if it were allowed to do so, but since the principal competitors, Japan and the United States, tie their aid, surely we cannot indefinitely see our markets taken over not only at our expense but at that of the developing countries themselves.
I am glad that Ceylon, an important market in this respect, and Malawi have been able to resist this pressure, despite the tying of American aid, and are still—this proves the competitiveness of British industry—buying United Kingdom fertilisers, using untied aid.
If we do not see the reality of this problem and do something about it, there could be a grave consequence. The principal producers, such as I.C.I., will be driven, as they are being driven, to seek outlets in "residual" markets, such as China, Egypt and Cuba. In Cuba, a £3 million contract was negotiated over three years with 12 months' unsecured credit, which illustrates the fact that, in these markets, conditions, financial and political, are such that the British industry can not permanently seek them as outlets.
There is the risk that the industry might then have to cut back on its capacity, with the result that the world would be the poorer because, as I said, the British industry is producing—and will go on producing in this way because we are continually pioneering new

methods—fertilisers at a price lower than any of our competitors.
Aid mistakenly untied in this connection could contribute to unemployment in Britain through a cut-back in production. On the other hand, if my suggestion were adopted the opposite would be the case and we would be able not only to benefit the developing nations by sending them larger amounts of fertiliser at lower prices, but we would be helping our development areas.
Our position under the International Sugar Agreement is unique in that we are buying sugar from Commonwealth producers at what really amounts to a subsidised price, yet without any exchange in preference in the sale of fertilisers. As a result, we are supplying only 5 per cent. of their needs, compared with 32 per cent. from the other western European markets, 26 per cent. from the United States and 24 per cent. from Japan. I am asking for a practical measure—perhaps under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Act—to be taken to benefit not only the developing countries but our own industry, which is predominantly sited in development areas which have high rates of unemployment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) on both the brevity of his speech and the degree to which he avoided platitudes. I will do my best to emulate him and I certainly do not intend to define in yet more harrowing terms what aid is about.
The House knows that I am deeply concerned with this subject. I do not begin on the premise that £650 million spent on aid in the last three and a half years is necessarily money badly spent. On the other hand, I welcome the scepticism which has been expressed about aid in this country. I want to ensure that before we spend our hard-earned money—and, whatever the Minister says, a good deal of it is foreign currency—we know that it will be well spent. I want to see that all Western aid achieves a worthwhile purpose, but there is reason to doubt that it is.
In my contacts with the Ministry of Overseas Development I have found it perhaps more complacent than any other Government Department. Some of its


utterances can only be described as smug. I was, therefore, pleased to hear the Minister's note of special pleading. I agree that there have been aid successes. The Minister quoted some, but how many of these have been due to the sudden discovery of oil or other minerals? How often when, according to United Nations statistics, standards have increased, does it only mean that men have moved from the comparative comfort of subsistence farming to the comparative slavery of modern industry in large towns. I am myself sceptical about the results that are achieved or that we pretend are achieved by the aid we give.
Merely to give is not enough. We want to see aid-receiving countries reach the point when they can generate their own growth, cease to depend on us and create their own development by pulling up their boot straps. That is the only way that the under-developed countries will, in the long run, grow rich.
Let us look at a few facts. We have heard talk about U.N.C.T.A.D. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) spoke at length—I thought rather impolitely, considering the shortness of the debate—on this subject. U.N.C.T.A.D., in Delhi, was at best a qualified failure. Again, I do not think that I know a single country which is in receipt of British aid which during the last 10 years has reached the take—off point at which it can begin to generate its own growth.
Much is said about commodity prices. Sisal is an important commodity and the price of this product has gone down probably more than any other in the last few years. However, our post offices no longer use sisal string to tie up our letters, they use nylon. This is a small point, but if one was producing sisal one would be extremely annoyed about this.
I have had the good fortune to visit a number of under-developed countries in recent years. I have noticed that one really worthwhile thing that is always mentioned is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I understand that that does not even come under the Ministry and is not paid out of the Department's Vote, but by the British housewife by an additional ½d. or 1½d. per lb. of sugar. Is the money that we are giving away anything like as effectively spent as our Commonwealth Sugar Agreement money?

In East Africa, in areas which I have known well over a period of years, the change that is noticeable is not richer peasants and mare houses with corrugated iron roofs, it is the terrific increase in the number of civil servants going round the bush in Landrovers with heavily stuffed brief cases, adding not one cob of maize to the productivity of the district. The only increase in wealth to be noticed is that the palm trees and the cashew nut trees are more mature than they were during the colonial period. I am sorry, I am sceptical about what aid is achieving.
We have no reason for complacency. I have no doubt that at the micro-economic level there are dozens of successes about which excellent documents can be written, but at that micro-economic level there is no sign of success. I believe that this House would do far better to concern itself deeply with the strategy of aid and our own Ministry's policy on aid, rather than to talk about whether U.N.C.T.A.D. is a success, a part failure, or a complete failure. We have to look very much more carefully at the whole strategy.
The suggestiton by Mr. Woods, the President of the World Bank, of an international audit on the whole of aid-giving is one which we should support. If the Minister wanted to cut something out of his speech, why did he cut out Government support for that, since nothing could be more important?
Is this House really in a position to debate the record of the Ministry of Overseas Development? We get a very large number of public relations documents from them, perhaps too many. This debate, I presume, is based on the statistical paper which was produced last June and which gave statistics up to December, 1966. Is it not a little odd to have a debate before the next and up-to-date statistical document is produced? Can we have an explanation? We have nothing, apart from two statistical documents and two rather wishy-washy papers which do not give an insight into the general strategy, one of which is out of date and the other puerile in terms of modern thinking on the economics of development.
The House is entitled to more than a cut-down debate before the up-to-date


figures are published and without a proper statement of the Ministry's strategy. The money which is spent by the Ministry is spent so far away that we are entitled to a much greater insight than is provided by a selected set of statistics once a year, and a Blue Book when they feel like publishing it.
I am not entirely in favour of Select Committees, but overseas aid might well be the best subject for a Select Committee. I am convinced that a three-hour debate does not provide adequate investigation into the £200 million a year which is spent on overseas aid. The House is entitled to look at the subject much more carefully and with much better facts and figures before it. There should be a full-scale debate in this House for at least a whole day, so that the detailed points many hon. Members wish to make can be made in full, and dealt with in full.
I hope that the Minister will take the message back to the Leader of the House that this is not good enough. I am told that the Estimates Committee is looking into the Ministry. When that report is produced, presumably in the autumn of this year, with more up-to-date figures, and when a better policy statement is available, I suggest to the Minister that we should have the full debate that the House and this country, which is contributing the £200 million, are entitled to have.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I start by congratulating the Government on having resisted some exceedingly ill-informed pressures, following recent economic difficulties, to cut the overseas aid and development programme. The leadership which they have shown in this respect has been exemplary, and I am sure that many hon. Members on this side of the House would want to place on record their appreciation of it.
As has been said several times, there are three good reasons for an overseas aid and development programme. First, there is the moral argument. This country has been mesmerised for too long in an orgy of introspective self-analysis. If we are so desperately concerned about protecting our society and the values on which it is based, we should ask our-

selves more frequently what those values demand of us in international action.
Secondly, there is the strategic argument. Thirty per cent. of the world's population has 60 per cent. of the world's foodstuffs. The average European or American can expect to earn 10 times the average income of an Asian. A most modest weekly wage in our country is similar to the annual earnings of peasant farmers in many parts of Africa. As a result of the revolution in communications, two-thirds of the world's population is becoming increasingly aware of the privileges of the one-third to which we belong. That two-thirds will not rest content.
It is no exaggeration to say that we are approaching a world revolutionary situation which may usher in an era in international relations which will make the cold war seem like child's play by comparison. None of us, especially in the light of recent events in this country, can overlook the fact that the gap between the two-thirds and the one-third is underlined by race. I do not believe that we have begun to understand the passions which this conflict may release in the international community.
In face of this challenge, do we realise that the West collectively still spends 600 per cent. more on the negative preparations for the containment of violence should it occur as it spends on the positive fight against ignorance, poverty and disease, which, after all, are the cause of instability and tension. None of us looking at the present international situation really fears a direct confrontation between the great Powers, but we all know that the real risk to international security is the possibility of escalation of some local conflict, and the problems of economic and social development are directly related to this.
Thirdly, there is the economic argument. However little we may know about economic theory in general, we all know that one of the fundamental points about the sustained economic growth of our community since the Industrial Revolution has been the increased purchasing power of the artisan and working classes. It is clear that the increased economic prosperity of the international community as a whole will be related to the increased purchasing power of the developing countries.
If we accept that point, it is clear, as Paul Hoffman is believed to have said in a recent discussion, that we should be setting aside a significant proportion of our annual budget for market development. It is plain that in the case of the International Development Association, for example, we are already getting the dividends, because for every £1 which we contribute we get 30s. worth of orders. It must be repeated that when the Government felt bound, unfortunately, just over a year ago to make a cut of £20 million in the overseas aid and development programme, the saving to our balance of payments was barely £7 million.
In determining the basis of our overseas aid and development programme, we should consider some of the problems of developing countries. Perhaps the most general and fundamental problem of a developing country is that the first flush of enthusiasm with political independence disappears as the realisation grows that economic domination by former colonial powers and others is as great as, if not greater than, ever. Sometimes when we react too spontaneously to events such as those in Zambia and Tanzania we should remember that the objective of the programme is to ensure that countries stand on their own feet and are economically self-sufficient. If we try to prolong a situation in which we maintain economic domination of their economies, we are working against the very objectives which hon. Members on both sides of the House have been expressing.

Sir George Sinclair: What examples has the hon. Member of this country trying to keep a country in modern times in a state of dependence so that we can exploit it? That sounds utter poppycock.

Mr. Judd: I was referring to people who react spontaneously without much thought to events such as those recently announced by the President of Zambia. The desire of the President of Zambia to see the people of Zambia managing their own economy is to be welcomed.

Sir G. Sinclair: I agree.

Mr. Judd: I am glad that the hon. Member agrees. This is not the first time we have agreed on matters of this sort.
We have to look at the problem of the rapid population explosion and the fact that it is overtaking improvements in the education and welfare services. Reference has been made to the U.N. Development Decade which had the objective of 1 per cent. of National income being contributed by developed countries to development programmes to secure a five per cent. growth rate in the developing countries but where there is a 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent. growth in population this would mean that the per capita income of developing countries would rise by only 1½ per cent. to 2 per cent. and it would take 35 to 50 years for them to double their living standards. In India the average per capita income would still only be about £50. Here we see the size of the population explosion.
Then there is the problem of neglect of agricultural programmes so that countries which previously were agriculturally self-supporting now have to import foodstuffs and agricultural products. There is also the large-scale migration to towns, resulting in the shanty towns which are built around them, often with disease as a result.
Illiteracy makes nonsense of development programmes because the people are not able to take advantage of what is planned and there are inadequate resources for administration. It is estimated that there are between 700 million and 1,000 million illiterates in the world.
The pressure for capital-intensive development may result in the creation of a technological élite at the actual expense of the majority of the population who find themselves relatively worse off than before. At the very time when developing countries are trying to secure outlets for their primary products there is an emphasis in developed counties such as ours on the production of synthetic and substitute goods.
There is the problem of shortage of capital for development of the right sort in the developing countries, and there is the dead weight of loan and interest repayment. All of us recognise that world trade still remains organised from the point of view of the older nations. Developing countries may find fluctuations in world commodity prices as large as 12 per cent. which can wipe out in one year the progress made in several previous


years. In the G.A.T.T. and U.N.C.T.A.D. we hear talk about overcoming these difficulties, but we want action and very few of us are convinced that following the U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference there will be action on the scale which is necessary.
Six points deserve priority, in our manifesto for economic and social development. First we must have relevant education. In the past there has been too much emphasis in developing countries on the syllabi and systems of education used in our own society. We even have examples of buttercups being flown out for use in biology examinations because they are not available in the country concerned. We must do a great deal of work in devising systems of education and syllabi directly relevant to the needs of developing countries.
I have recently come back from Botswana. There I have been delighted to see the work done at Swaneng Hill School, near Serowe. They have built the classrooms and dormitories and are running a school farm. They have also started a builders' brigade for unemployed young people living in the area of the school. Indeed, the students have now moved out of Swaneng to a place several hundred miles away where they are involved in building another secondary school which can begin to meet the needs of the community at Tonota just south of Francistown. This seems to me to be the sort of relevant application of education that is necessary. It is not just an academic process but is relevant to immediate needs.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Did my hon. Friend also see in Botswana the useful work going on in the co-operative societies aided by Oxfam?

Mr. Judd: I certainly did, and Oxfam has collected several laurels this evening. It is true also that Oxfam has been involved with others in support of the school at Swaneng.
Secondly, I think we must look at the problem of agriculture. We must give a great deal of attention to devising modern concepts of how we can get improvement immediately in the local situation of agricultural production. To take the example of Botswana, a country which I visited very recently, I was most intrigued to see an experiment carried out in which a

tractor and a traditional team of oxen had been given the job of cultivating a piece of land to see which was the better economic proposition. To the satisfaction of all concerned, it has been proved that in that situation the traditional team of oxen with a better and more efficient plough can produce better results than the tractor introduced to the situation.
The point is that we must look for small, relevant, technical improvements which can be grasped and mastered by the local people, and which can show positive direct results which can spread the value of economic growth to a wide cross-section of the population.
In this respect, all I can do in the time available is to commend to the House the work of Dr. Schumacher and the Intermediate Technology Development Group, which is paying a great deal of attention to the whole concept of how we can get relevant technical development which can be mastered by the local population.
The next point is that we have to face up to the problem of population control. It is nonsense to devote resources to development programmes if we are constantly to be defeated by this overpowering problem of the population explosion.
We must also look at the problem of world liquidity, and this concerns our own Chancellor deeply because of our own position in Britain. But if we are so preoccupied with our own needs in this respect, if we are trying to work out modern, relevant, international methods for dealing with the problems, let us look at the far greater needs of the developing countries and include them in our plans at this stage.
Of course, we must also face up to the issue of tariffs, because, again, it is nonsense to be devoting resources to the development of industries and productive capacity in a developing country if we then deny that country an outlet for its products into a developed market.
I believe, also, that as the Minister has suggested this evening, we must put more emphasis on the multilateral approach. I would say only one thing about this. I believe that it can be argued that the bilateral competitive aid approach has a divisive effect on a developing country because, at the very time when one should be trying to build up local planning resources so that the Government


and the Administration of the country are really in charge of their own priorities and the administration of their economy, one is building in a fragmentary process of different schemes which are uncoordinated and originate from different countries and organisations, paying lip service perhaps to the planning Ministry in a particular country, but not really building up a co-ordinated policy of economic control and development in that country.
Finally, I want to refer to one very important development which was well illustrated in the Algiers Charter but has been even better and more clearly put forward by the President of Tanzania in the Arusha Declaration. I believe that whatever our temporary political differences with that country, what was said at Arusha just over a year ago was of profound significance for all those who are interested in development. President Nyerere said on that occasion:
…even if it were possible for us to get enough money for our needs from external sources, is this what we really want? Independence means self-reliance. Independence cannot be real if a Nation depends upon gifts and loans from another for its development. Even if there was a Nation, or Nations, prepared to give us all the money we need for our development, it would be improper for us to accept such assistance without asking ourselves how this would affect our independence and our very survival as a nation. Gifts which start off or stimulate our own efforts are useful gifts. But gifts which weaken our own efforts should not be accepted without asking ourselves a number of questions.
This spirit emanating in the developing countries illustrates the real potential for the partnership in this operation which those concerned in the Ministry are seeking all the time.
My last thought is that, if we as politicians are occasionally tempted to be apologetic in presenting the case to the nation for an overseas development and aid programme, there is no need for apologetic attitudes, because basically there is one fundamental truth facing all of us. Britain has announced in terms of her foreign policy in recent months that she can no longer police her interests abroad alone. We have also seen in recent months that, economically, we are as dependent, if not more so, on international economic growth and economic stability as we have even been.
If this is so, we simply cannot afford not to give the highest possible priority

to overseas aid and development programmes. As has been said very clearly, this is an almost providential combination of morality and enlightened self-interest. I believe that it is on that basis that all of us should encourage the Government to state that the first opportunity, as our economic position improves, the present £205 million programme will be increased to £300 million.
I believe that this short debate has illustrated the farcical way in which the House is trying to interest itself in overseas aid and development programmes. It is exactly two years since we had a major debate on overseas aid and development. If this is, as I believe that it is, a central theme of foreign policy, it is disgraceful that in the allocation of our time we should devote three hours earlier this evening to Gibraltar, however important that subject may be, and three hours later to this whole problem which is so vital and significant in the whole realm of foreign policy. I associate myself with those who have argued that we should make strong representations for the early creation of a Select Committee on overseas aid and development.

9.13 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I want to take up immediately the plea made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) for a fuller debate on aid later this year and for the creation of a Select Committee to keep aid, its objectives and its methods under continuing review. We owe this to the taxpayers as a matter of good housekeeping and also to the public as a means of enlightenment on what we are trying to do on their behalf.
The vast amount of capital that is spent in the development of the developing countries is generated by themselves. Even in statistics, it comes to 80 per cent.; but we forget the amount of effort put in at village level that cannot be reflected in any statistics…No country, once it has become independent politically wants, wants to go on being economically dependent on people outside.
I am sad to think of the weak rôle our country played at U.N.C.T.A.D. this year. We failed to follow up the very bold initiative of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he went to the first U.N.C.T.A.D. in 1964. There has been a sad falling away over U.N.C.T.A.D., both in ideas and the


priority the present Government have given to the problems which this conference was trying to solve.
I am sorry that the present Minister of Overseas Development, who has his heart in the cause for which his Ministry was founded, has had so little scope for the expansion of aid and technical assistance that he would wish. It is the Government's fault, for they have made a real hash of the economy.
But I am interested in some of the new developments within the Ministry, which I welcome. First, there is the Population Bureau, which is at the heart of one of the problems we are all trying to solve, helping countries which are worried about their population explosion to deal with it. It is a long-term project, but something in which research and technical assistance can play a really important part. Its work is essential to the effectiveness of any aid we give, and I am delighted to see that such a bureau has been set up.
It is important to have a projects division to keep projects under review. I am also glad that we have development divisions both in the Middle East and in the Caribbean. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that they are being useful not only in keeping our aid under review but in acting as advisers, with real experience of similar problems elsewhere, at the request of the countries among which they are working.
We all welcome the new emphasis the right hon. Gentleman claims that his Ministry is giving to the rural sector of the developing countries, on which 80 per cent. of the world's poorer people depend. But I find it a little strange that, when a really imaginative attempt was made to help those rural sectors by the leaders of the Intermediate Technology Development Group, they received a limited welcome and little practical assistance when they first went to the Ministry. It has been a little more helpful since, but it missed a great opportunity when it gave such a tight-lipped welcome earlier and told us to pull ourselves up by our own boot straps. I declare some interest in this, as I am now associated with the group.
The low-cost simple techniques and equipment used in various parts of

the world which this group sponsors are important to rural development. Their task is the dissemination of knowledge about such equipment and the techniques for using them. And they are already achieving some promising results in countries which had never before thought of using such implements. It is a small but important adjunct to our technical assistance, and I am glad that it is being pioneered by private individuals who refused to be put off by bureaucracy, or complacency.
These new groupings within the Ministry are all very well, but they add up to more and more central control by more and more civil servants of things that happen far away. Control is necessary; it is our taxpayers' money. But I would rather see a greater effort by the Government to encourage the efforts of our private sector in territories overseas. From the other end, I have seen what private enterprise has done in practical terms in bringing not only economic development but the training of manpower and the transfer of more advanced techniques to the people who have welcomed overseas private enterprise into their countries.
One of the difficulties is that the efforts of this country towards the developing countries are too highly compartmentalised. I believe that aid is, on the whole, being fairly well used now and that technical assistance is having an impact. But there is no real co-ordination between, on the one side, our aid-giving and technical assistance—all under one roof—and, on the other side, our trade expansion through the E.C.G.D. and our overseas investment. These should all be elements of British overseas policy. On this much of our future prosperity, on this the good relations between us and the developing countries and on this much of the growth rate of developing countries depend. A great deal is bound up in all this.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how he proposes that private investment should be channelled into developing countries according to their need rather than according to the profitability of the enterprise?

Sir G. Sinclair: I was coming to that point.
In our trade, we have a most skilful and sensitive body in the E.C.G.D. Through that, with Government help, we encourage risk-taking in trade in certain directions. I am sorry that there is no similar body for investment, one that should be drawn largely from the skills and experience of the City and the C.B.I., to help overseas investment in much the same way as the E.C.G.D. helps with overseas trade. The E.C.G.D. is acceptable to our trading interests because it is sensitive and understands the processes. A similar body produced from similar sources for investment would, I suggest, have a useful rôle to play in helping to protect investment and secure some reciprocity between the capital-receiving country and the capital-exporting country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) made the point that Britain is far behind the United States, Germany and Japan in securing bilateral agreements for the protection of our overseas investments against political risks. I know what efforts have been made to get multilateral agreements on these lines, but these efforts have not yet been very effective. We may, I suggest, be missing an opportunity by not having a body constantly responsible for helping and protecting our overseas investment. I should suggest an overlapping membership between the E.C.G.D. and any such new body, to see that there was proper co-ordination between the two.

Mr. Onslow: Not only am I most doubtful of the value of any such "little Neddy" as my hon. Friend suggests, but, more important, the contribution by private funds could be much greater if so large a share were not taken by public funds. The most effective way of increasing the amount of aid is to increase the private money available and not to set up another committee to cut the cake smaller.

Sir G. Sinclair: It is hardly a committee. I have defined the kind of body, a small expert body.
Of course, there are other incentives for overseas investment, and the most important is the framework of taxation. The Government have stacked the odds against overseas investments at a time when we ought to be seeing how we can make new investments more effective and how we can channel it to Commonwealth

countries, not, as was suggested by an hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal benches, to Latin America.
He asked why we should concentrate on the Commonwealth. My answer is that it is in the Commonwealth that we have the trading infrastructure which helps us to take advantage of the increased economic pace flowing from out investment and aid. This is a good reason for directing our aid to countries where it can be most effective and where, because of our knowledge and rapport with the people, it can also serve our common interest. It is in such countries that we have the infrastructure to help British exports and British investment.
Turning to U.N.C.T.A.D., I was glad to hear the Minister say that the Government had played some part in supporting the proposals for supplementary finance which, as he acknowledged, came from the first U.N.C.T.A.D. and was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). However, I must say that nobody at U.N.C.T.A.D. is yet very heavily committed to this. There is a resolution on which action may take a long time. There were four years between the first and second U.N.C.T.A.D.s for the examination of this matter and it is now to be sent to a commission which is to report in the summer of 1969, five years since the idea was first put forward. The British and other Governments seem to have been extremely slothful about following up this excellent idea.
I notice, also, that the aid target has been redefined. When we put out this effort, it will be welcome because so much of it will come back.

Mr. John Biffen: No.

Sir G. Sinclair: My hon. Friend always lies down and shouts "No", but equally good economists on our side have used the phrase, "so much of it comes back", and I believe that to be the truth of the matter.
There are two services, which are a form of technical assistance which are important to the countries to which they have been given. I refer to the B.B.C. Overseas Service and especially to the new contribution which it is hoping to make to the teaching of English. There is a tremendous demand for this service all over the world, and that Vote partly


comes under the Ministry of Overseas Development which controls aid.
My other point is the British Council. Whenever funds are running short their grant seems to be cut. The Council is carrying out a service in tremendous demand overseas—the teaching of English. This has an unmeasured effect on our prospects of improving relations with those countries, and in the end, marginally improving our trading and investment prospects. I would hate to see, under this Minister, any proposals to cut those grants further than they have already been cut. I would like to see them expanded. They may seem vague in their return, but I believe that the return in good will and positive effects through trade are good and worth while going for. I would commend to the Minister the support of those two Votes when he comes to fight for his funds.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I apologise for interrupting the debate in view of the powerful plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), whose distinctive contribution I should very much like to have heard. The length of our parliamentary life span is five years, or, as some of us fervently hope with this Government, something less. This must at least dispose us, as Members of Parliament to be rather short-term thinkers. I have been encouraged, listening to almost the whole of the debate, to see how many of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite have resisted the natural disposition of Members of Parliament, and have thought some way ahead. Clearly the main problems with which this debate is concerned are not short-term problems, important as those are.
All of us, if we peer ahead into the distance, can see the dim shape of mountains which make relatively insignificant the political and economic foothills which largely occupy our attention at present. I hope that I will be forgiven if I try to put into my own perspective one of the main problems which the human race simply has to solve. It is the problem touched on by the Minister when he began the debate, and also by his right hon. Friend the Member for Middles-brough, East (Mr. Bottomley) as well as other hon. Members.
Scientists tell us that this planet may be about 3,000 million years old. That may be a few million years out, but I do not suppose that it matters. Some kind of human beings may have existed on it for something like a third of that time and the scientists tell us—I do not know how they know—that the planet may be inhabitable for another 2,000 million years to come. Even if the scientists are a bit out, it is still true that man has a nice stretch in front of him, as long as he does not decide to commit mass suicide in the intervening period.
Meanwhile, the population of the world is increasing by something like 2 per cent. a year. That does not sound very much, but, like the story of the 32 nails in the horse's hoof, by the time one gets to the end of the story the change is quite considerable. Even at this apparently modest rate of increase, the world's population will put us in a bit of a jam, even at the end of this century. By that time man will only have served 32 of his 2,000 million years. I am told that by the end of this century, or soon after, there could be as many people living on this planet as the sum total of all the human beings who have lived and died up to that time. That strikes me as being a rather staggering thought.
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of this problem as one of immense importance. His right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, at the U.N.C.T.A.D. called it the overriding problem of population control. Where we have a situation where man has the power and the will to go on driving down the death rate, together with the power, but not yet the will, to cut down on reproduction, this increase is bound to continue unless we are prepared to allow a fairly free hand to famine, disease and war to redress the balance.
It is obvious from what we have heard today and from what we know, that the prevention of famine, disease and war are three of the most important justifications for the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and for similar organisations, both public and private, the world over. He, and they, and their successors may be successful—I fervently hope they will be—in the next few decades in preventing a considerable proportion of the world's increasing population starving to death by the better organisation of the world's


food resources, by improved and new methods of extracting food from both the earth and the sea, and by the possible development of new forms of nourishment, especially from mineral oils. But without a solution to the problem of population, we shall merely postpone the day of reckoning, when our children and grandchildren, rather like Canning in reverse, might be forced to call into existence the old world of famine, disease and war, to redress the balance of the new. This is a very sobering thought, because mankind still has the time to avoid this looming disaster, but only if its collective efforts to increase the food resources of the world, to eliminate disease, and to preserve peace, are matched by its collective will to limit reproduction.
The right hon. Gentleman had encouraging things to say. I have no doubt that he has this problem very much at the front of his mind, because, in my opinion, at least as large a share of the right hon. Gentleman's attention should be directed to the solution of this problem as to the solution of the other problems which have occupied this debate.
I think that I have said enough to make plain that the objectives of development assistance will all be frustrated by a failure to solve what I believe is the central problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) mentioned three possible objectives of development assistance. I believe that without the solution of the population problem, it will be impossible, first, to reduce the disproportion between the living standards of the developed and the developing world. Secondly, it will still be extremely hard, if not impossible, to bring the developing countries to a state of economic "take-off". I think that was my hon. Friend's phrase. Thirdly, the avoidance of starvation in the immediate future will merely push the ultimate day of reckoning a little further away.
These are all objectives which I wholeheartedly support, and I am sure we all do. Therefore, I am anxious that we should dc all we can to help to create conditions in which their attainment becomes practicable. Even if—and it is a big "if"—the developing world can make rapid progress towards a solution of its population problems, I am certain

—and all I have heard in the debate makes me more certain—that a massive contribution in development assistance is necessary.
We have talked about the need for private investment, and the need for agreements between Great Britain, on the one side, and the developing states, on the other, to minimise the risks and free the flow of capital to the ultimate advantage of both this country and the countries to which our aid is going.
We have talked about bilateral and multilateral aid. I find myself in general agreement with the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), but I find it less easy than they did to be completely dogmatic. We have talked about tied and untied aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) made the broad suggestion that there might exist in this House a Select Committee on Development Assistance. I hope that the Minister will comment on the general suggestion that we should have rather more frequent opportunities to look at this immensely important problem than is afforded at the moment.
We have not talked very much about trade. The difficulty about the terms of trade, as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East said, is that the bargaining power of the developing countries is relatively extremely small. The rich countries have the power, if they want to exercise it, to force the developing countries to accept terms of trade which are to their disadvantage. It is clearly essential that developing countries should be able to sell their goods in the developed world at a reasonable price; and what my hon. Friend called the economic breakthrough will be impossible without some form of international action to ensure for the developing countries a fair return.
That is one reason why, quite rightly, that was one of the most important matters discussed at both the U.N.C.T.A.D. conferences, a leading part in the first of which was played by my right hon. Friend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said. Progress in this direction is extremely slow. The proposal for generalised preferences and supplementary finance had not yet reached final


agreement, nor has there been any great progress on commodity agreements.
Here, I must introduce one slight note of disharmony into the debate. In opposition, the Prime Minister was not backward in his attacks on my right hon. Friends for their failure to achieve this agreement. In office he and his colleagues have, no doubt, discovered the difficulties. I am aware of them, and I do not intend to criticise the right hon. Gentleman for not having achieved more, but I hope that his hon. Friend will give us an undertaking that the Government intend to continue this search for satisfactory agreements which will bring great benefit to the developing countries.
I do not intend this evening, because I think that there are other greater matters to occupy our attention, to criticise the Government for the cuts in real terms which the aid programme earlier suffered. I happen to hold the view that the right hon. Gentleman deserves some credit for salvaging as much as he has for his programme, from the midst of the economic turmoil which his right hon. Friends have created, as a result of which, as my hon. Friend said, many Socialist promises and many Socialist criticisms of my party's performance now sound a little hollow.
I should not like to end on a note of sourness in what has been a congenial and agreeable debate. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is only too well aware of the work that still needs to be done. If his economic colleagues have made it a bit harder for him to do all that he wants to do, I believe that he deserves our sympathy rather than our condemnation. This matter is too serious for easy debating points, certainly too serious for attempts to try to win some small party advantage. It seems to be far bigger than that, a great deal bigger even than individual nations, however powerful they may be, because this is an issue on which we in this country together with other developed nations can do something to shape the future course of the world.
I hope that I said enough at the beginning to make clear my deep conviction that the time may be dangerously short. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman deserves not our criticism, but our support, in what he has tried to do,

because if he and we fail we shall almost certainly bequeath to the next generation a situation which will be beyond the reach of human power.

9.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): When a subject as broad and as complex as international aid falls to be dealt with in such a short debate as this, all speakers and the House suffer, but I suggest that the Member who has to wind up the debate—in this case myself—suffers most, unless it be those who are excluded altogether. He who winds up faces the double danger of appearing discourteous to those to whom he does not reply and inadequate to those to whom he does. I shall do my best.
I welcome the general demand for further and fuller opportunities to debate these important matters, and I assure the House that my right hon. Friend has taken note of this insistent demand and will communicate it to the Leader of the House. He and I certainly will not be backward in seeking other opportunities for debate. I would point out that the I.D.A. supplementation, which was mentioned, will need legislation. This should be one further opportunity, and we can hope for others.
I agree with the emphasis which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) put on aid being for development. I am sure that he knows that this has been the keynote in all our publications and speeches since the setting up of this Ministry. There are many other motivations. Trade has been discussed, and it is no secret that trade and aid are, rightly, linked. There was discussion, too, of the political purposes of aid, but the essential facet of aid is that it should serve the development of the recipient countries: this has always been the object of my Ministry.
I do not dispute that private investment is important in development and has to be complementary to official aid. The two are a partnership, and it is right that the Ministries—mine and the Board of Trade—should, in developing our aid programmes, ensure that private enterprise has full opportunity to take advantage of our aid operations to ensure trade developments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in both Ministries, there are


constant contacts with private trading interests to ensure that this parallel development of private investment and official aid goes forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), dealt with two aspects of technical assistance. He was the only speaker who mentioned the great value of the young volunteers who go out to help in our programmes and I am sure that all who have visited developing countries, as I have, will have heard their hosts praise their work. We are told that it is invaluable and are, therefore, glad that our Ministry can provide much of the funds which enables them to serve in this way.
My right hon. Friend said that he hoped that the developing countries would get away from the demand for teachers and think more of the need to train teachers themselves. That is precisely the message which I tried to put across at the recent Common wealth Education Conference in Lagos, where we indicated in a number of ways that this different emphasis was the one which we would seek—the training of teachers rather than merely seconding them from this country, although I envisage that both processes will be necessary for many years because of the enormous demand.
My right hon. Friend raised a constituency matter similar to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), but it relates to an important general question, the tying of aid. They mentioned fertilisers, but with a difference of emphasis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East resisted the temptation to suggest that aid should be specifically tied to the purchase of fertiliser, which is an important interest in his constituency, but I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland would be in favour of this specific tying.
In the way we operate now, that it, with much of our aid tied, but not specifically to commodities, the fertiliser industry has already benefited. Of 50,000 tons of fertiliser purchased by India last year, for instance, about 30,000 tons was paid for out of aid funds, but not because that aid was specifically tied to the purchase of fertiliser. There was a general requirement to purchase in this country, but we are anxious to leave it to the

recipient country to use the foreign exchange which we make available in the way which suits it best. This tying to specific commodities was condemned at U.N.C.T.A.D. and we would deplore any extension of tying in this way.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) made a long but, on the whole, constructive speech with a great deal of detail, and he will not expect me to answer on all the details. He referred to U.N.C.T.A.D. and he and others have said that the conference was a great disappointment—and disappointment is a word which we could all echo in this connection, I think. We should, however, remember that U.N.C.T.A.D. was convened—nobody can complain about this—at probably the most unpropitious time at which to convene a conference with the purposes of that one. Thus, one did not go into it expecting great miracles, and certainly no miracles were achieved.
On the other hand, it was not a complete failure. My right hon. Friend indicated some areas in which progress was made. He referred to the agreement in principle on a general scheme for preferences. Some progress was made on the question of supplementary financial measures and I believe that a satisfactory outcome to the conference was reached on the question of aid targets.
The hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) suggested, on the question of supplementary financial measures, that we and other Governments had been slothful. I assure him that we have not been slothful in this matter. We have been pressing the initiative which we took at the first conference four years ago and we pressed it energetically at New Delhi. But at a conference where 100 other associates are involved, the activities of one Government cannot rule the day. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have done everything we could in this respect.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West listed a number of practical proposals, many of which I assure him we are already implementing as part of the Ministry's activities. I will give only two examples of this; firstly, the question of staff at embassies—the numbers appointed for this purpose have been considerably increased—and, secondly, the question of interest-free loans. In


the past two years 90 per cent. of new loans negotiated with developing countries have been on an interest-free basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the same positive remarks could be made about a number of his other suggestions.
I apologise if I have not replied to all the points made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) gave, in a vigorous speech, his view of the development problems facing the developing countries. Like others, he referred to the great problem caused by the population explosion, the need for agricultural development and the need for developing techniques particularly suited to the needs of those countries. I believe that the hon. Member for Dorking had this in mind when he referred to the work of the Intermediate Technology Group. I do all I can, in a variety of ways, to support the work of that Group.
In my concluding remarks, I give my attitude to the nature of the development which we should be seeking in the under-developed areas. We often speak of the developed world on the one hand and the developing world on the other. But it is wrong to go on from that to believe that we should aim at transforming the developing world into mere imitations of the developed world. The countries of the developing world must find their distinctive social and economic forms of development, and they will not necessarily be the same as those which we employed during our development.

Mr. Biffen: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the distinctive social patterns of these countries, may we conclude that he does not concur with the argument that there is, as it were, an acceptable presumption on the part of the developed world to impose population control on the recipient countries of aid?

Mr. Oram: One does not want to impose that. However, we have said that this is a vastly important problem that they must tackle. We stand ready to provide technical assistance to them, and that is why we are setting up the Population Bureau. Throughout the world, and particularly in the developing countries, there is an awareness that this is of paramount importance, and I entirely share the excellent view put forward by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood).
I was referring to the need to avoid a mere imitation of our development. The tragedy of much that is going on in the developing countries today is that perhaps they are imitating our mistakes. The shanty-towns may be a repetition of our industrial towns; and they were not the best way of housing our industrial workers. The neglect of African villages is paralleled in our neglect of our villages during our industrial revolution. Our population explosion at that time is perhaps being paralleled by the population explosion in the developing countries.
For these reasons the Ministry is devoting increasing attention to a whole range of problems, including the need for greater attention to be placed on rural development and on the right kind of education for rural development. We stand ready in these spheres of population control, agricultural education and so on to assist, we are increasing our resources for giving technical assistance, we welcome every request we receive from overseas and we are doing our best to be of assistance in these matters. We believe that this is the best contribution that we can make to uplifting the standard of living of the millions of people who have been at the centre of our thoughts in our debate today.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)

10.1 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it is convenient to discuss the second Scheme with this Motion:
That the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this Home on 23rd April, be approved.

Mr. Mackie: I think that that will be convenient, Sir.
As hon. Members know, this grant is payable for ploughing grassland more than 12 years old where the cost of operations is substantially heavier than normal, and it is designed to encourage farmers to bring into cultivation land which would otherwise be unproductive.
About 40,000 to 50,000 acres are reclaimed each year in this way, and hon. Members will agree that it is particularly desirable to go on providing this encouragement at a time when it is so necessary to make the best possible use of this country's resources. In addition, the land reclaimed helps to offset that lost to agriculture through urban and similar development.
I should perhaps draw attention to a minor change in paragraph 3(3), which will allow an approval given under any of the three previous Schemes to remain valid for the current Scheme. The change involves no loss of financial control and saves the farmer and the Ministry some unnecessary paper work, which is always desirable. When we can, we like to simplify the requirements of our Schemes to enable farmers to get on with the practical business of farming.
The House will wish to know what the Schemes will cost. The figure included in the 1968–69 Estimates is £696,000, of which £575,000 is for England and Wales, £25,000 for Northern Ireland and £96,000 for Scotland. This differs from the total of the published Estimates, which include £150,000 for the special £10 ploughing grant introduced 'earlier this year to assist farmers who

had suffered as a result of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.
I would commend these Schemes for the approval of the House.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I do not think that we have ever had a briefer and more business-like presentation of a Scheme than that which the hon. Gentleman has given us tonight. Might I say to him that one of the advantages, although that perhaps is too strong a word, of the £12 an acre Scheme is that we are tonight enabled to concentrate solely upon this without it playing second fiddle to the Part I Scheme of previous years.
Presumably, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to the debate, and I wonder whether he will tell us about the kind of land which qualifies for the £12 an acre grant. I have done a certain amount of research into previous debates of this kind, and it is a fact that, perhaps inevitably the £12 Part II section of the Ploughing Grant Scheme has always been dominated by the much more popular Part I.
What sort of land qualifies for the £12 an acre grant? One knows from the Scheme that it is land which involves heavier than normal expenditure on ploughing, subsequent cultivation and seeding. What does the land usually consist of? Is it steep land where ploughing has to be done in a special way, or is it land which involves the cleaning up of woodlands and the pulling out of the stumps of trees? Would the Under-Secretary of State say where normally it is to be found? Is this the sort of grant which applies more to the steephill areas of each country, or does it apply to inaccessible land in the low areas?
Would the hon. Gentleman also explain the significance in paragraph 2 of the Scottish and English Schemes of the words
land under grass' includes any grazing land"?
I should have thought that grazing must mean that beasts frequently eat in a grass field. Is it possible for a beast to graze other than on grass? This is typical of the points in the education which I have received from the right


hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It puzzles me a little. Surely a beast cannot graze other than on grass. Therefore, what is the purpose of putting these words in the Scheme?
What is the significance of paragraph 6 of the Scottish Scheme compared with paragraph 3(4) of the English Scheme? The English Scheme—and we should give the English credit for something now and again—appears to say precisely the same but very much more succinctly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say whether there is any point in paragraph 6 of the Scottish Scheme compared with paragraph 3(4) of the English Scheme. It is about two and a half times as long, and I am not entirely convinced that there is any great difference between the two paragraphs.
Last year, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) said that since 1952 600,000 acres had received the advantage of the grant, of which Scotland contributed 108,000. That is an average over the United Kingdom of 40,000 acres a year, of which Scotland had an average of 7,000. In percentage terms, the Scottish average was 18 per cent. compared with 23 per cent. in respect of the former Part I Order. I should have thought that Scotland would have benefited more from the Part II Order than England or Wales because of the nature of its terrain.
To what extent does the acreage under Part II vary from year to year? Last year, the Parliamentary Secretary said that each year an extra 40,000 or 50,000 acres qualified for this grant. He gave the figure of 40,000 again tonight. It is interesting to note that in 1963–64 the amount was 42,000 acres, in 1965–66 it was 54,000 acres and in 1959–60 it was 71,500 acres. There has been a very considerable reduction within the last five or six years. Do the Government as a matter of policy want this kind of land ploughed up for the £l2 an acre? If so, are we making full use through the various machinery of propaganda to ensure that we get all we want? If we want this kind of land, does the hon. Gentleman think that £12 an acre is enough in these days?
In 1952, 16 years ago, when the grant was first introduced the grant was £10 an acre. It was increased to £12 an acre

in 1955 and it has not been changed since. If £12 was regarded as necessary in 1955 to get this land under cultivation, are the Government entirely satisfied that, with the tremendous rise there has been in costs since, £12 is still adequate? I should have thought there was room for reclamation and ploughing up of these difficult areas subject to abnormal expenditure in these days. We know only too well that every year 50,000 acres are taken out of cultivation and are used for new towns, playing fields and roads. They are usually built on low ground. There would seem to be a very strong reason for reclaiming more acres by this method to try to fill the void created by the 50,000 acres which are removed from production.
If, 13 years ago, it was considered necessary to fix the grant at £12 an acre, can the Parliamentary Secretary give a good reason why the figure should still be considered adequate today in view of the rise in costs which has taken place? I have asked several questions to which I hope we shall have an answer. This grant of £12 an acre has been largely overshadowed, if not neglected, in previous debates. I shall therefore be obliged if, before the House gives assent to this Order, the hon. Gentleman will reply to these points.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: I am not quite sure what the main aim and object of the Government is in regard to this Scheme. I incline somewhat to the same view as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). In previous years ploughing grants were available and special grants and special circumstances exceeding the ploughing grant were available for land reclamation purposes and improvements of marginal land brought under the plough and cultivated.
This may get a few extra acres into better heart in view of the fact that the time stipulated for it under the Scheme was 1956, but I am very doubtful if that should be the aim and object of the Government in the present circumstances. I should have thought that the aim and object of any Government was to bring as much land as possible under cultivation and I feel that it is almost beyond the purse or the ability of the ordinary


farmer or many of those who own land throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, if not of England.
This s a matter which requires a greater concept than that contained in this Scheme of giving just the £12 grant. I think that the concept which should be put before this House by any progressive Government, seeing and knowing the necessity for greater production of foodstuff in our own country, is that seeing that all land which can be utilised is utilised to the best possible extent. That would presuppose the necessity to put into operation a different method of land reclamation than in the past.

Mr. Speaker: That cannot be done on this Scheme. We are discussing whether we should make a ploughing grant of £l2 an acre.

Mr. Baxter: But I think that the ploughing grant is such a small measure of assistance at £12 an acre that it will not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Scheme which is before us. I should have thought that a better method could and should have been adopted, such as I have indicated, by giving at least £12 an acre to the Land Commission for the purpose of reclamation throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
I agree that this would be diverging somewhat from the Scheme before us, but it is a suggestion which merits the serious consideration of the Government, because I believe that the method which has been adopted in previous years and has been continued in this Scheme, of giving a grant of £12 or even £15 an acre, is not sufficient to meet the requirements envisaged in the Scheme, which is to bring more land under the plough for the purpose of producing more foodstuff or grassland. As has been said, grassland is the food of livestock, and better grassland for our country would mean a greater amount of fat cattle and dairy cattle and of sheep.
Therefore, I believe that this is the wrong way to go about achieving the aims and objects that seem to underlie the provisions in this Scheme. I should have liked to take the matter further on a different theme but, as I am restricted to the contents of the Schemes before us, I must resume my seat and let other hon. Members take up the cudgel.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: The two Schemes before us this evening are fairly straightforward but there are one or two points which I should like to have clarified.
Some years ago we had two Schemes for bringing this type of land into production—this No. 2 Ploughing Grant Scheme and the Reclamation of Hill Land Scheme. This grant is for land which requires more than the normal labour to bring it into productivity. The grants are paid for land which has been under grass since 1956. In my opinion, if a grant was paid for this type of land 12 to 15 years ago, it should not be necessary to pay it again this time. Land which qualified for this £12 an acre grant 12 to 15 years ago, if it has been farmed, should not require those special operations which would make it qualify for this grant.
The acreage should be decreasing all the time, because the greater part of such land was brought under cultivation many years ago. I think that it would be better to go for the reclamation of hill land on a bigger scale and give the extra grants for that purpose. As reclamation grants were stopped a few years ago, there has been little activity in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only this grant that we can talk about in discussing this Scheme.

Mr. Mackenzie: I thought that it had a strong bearing on this Scheme, with respect, Sir.
I would like this point to be clarified: are these grants available for land which was brought into cultivation prior to 1956—say, between 1950 and 1956? If so, this is a waste of money because, if the grants have been paid and if the land has been properly farmed, further grants should not be required now. The English Scheme is straightforward. As a Scot, I cannot comment on it, but I give it my approval.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I will confine myself to asking only a few of the many questions which I would like to ask. The first point which springs to my mind is whether the grant of £12 an acre will tempt farmers to get on with the job that they should be doing. This


remains to be seen. Will it tempt farmers to carry out an operation which, in spite of the grant, is costly, because agriculture is not always as profitable as we would like it to be? I am not certain that the grant will encourage farmers to go to the trouble of doing all this, even though I admit that the grant is a help towards meeting the cost. A grant must be such as to tempt farmers to carry out the operation of reclaiming difficult land.
Obviously, I am not asking for an accurate figure, but it would be interesting to know how much more land is left which can qualify for the grant. We have been concerned for some time about this type of land. In the South-West there is much of this type of land which needs bringing into cultivation. The time is rapidly approaching when we should have a much better classification system of land so that we know how much land will qualify for grants such as this.
There is no doubt but that the grant will go a long way to encourage farmers to bring into cultivation land which would not otherwise be brought into cultivation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that the cost of these operations is increasing all the time. The time may well have arrived when the Minister should carefully consider whether £12 an acre is sufficient to meet the cost of bringing land into cultivation, as the cost of ploughing, with the heavy tackle which is necessary, and of fertiliser and of all the other things which must be done if land is to be brought into cultivation is rising all the time.
When he allows such land to have a grant the Minister should encourage farmers to persevere. It is not good enough to accept the grant, carry out the necessary cultivations, and then after a year or two allow the whole land to slip back, as happens in many instances. Therefore, it is worth asking the Minister to encourage the N.A.A.S. and those who advise and operate the Scheme to see that the farmers persevere and the land is brought into a high state of cultivation.
The need for this type of grant to bring in extra acres will grow. As more and more land is used up for other pur-

poses it is vital that the country starts to use every bit of ground it can to produce the food we need and to save imports. Therefore, I welcome the Scheme.

10.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): There has been a general welcome for the grant on a number of points. I shall try to emulate my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and deal with the questions as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) asked what land would qualify for the £12 grant. He asked whether it should be land that was steep or had particular problems because of contours clearance problems, stumps, boulders, and so on. The problem is all those kinds of land. In the past, there has been about 32 per cent. of hill land, 8 per cent. bordering hill land and about 60 per cent. of other land. The requirement is the inordinate cost rather than the nature of the land.

Mr. Stodart: Is it well known by farmers that if, for example, they were going to break land that is steep up from the plough and might have to be ploughed one way it would be worthwhile for them to apply for a £12 subsidy before they start, because they must not start first or they will not get the subsidy?

Mr. Buchan: I cannot say how well it is known. No doubt we should try to get it better known. On both sides of the Border the Departments make every effort to make the grants known to farmers. From my experience in office in the past 15 months, I have not found them l0th to respond when there is a possibility of assistance.
I was asked about the significance of the phrase "grazing land". The problem is that some land is grazed but also takes in heather, scrub, and so on. This kind of rough grazing would qualify.
The hon. Gentleman asked why paragraph 6 should be more complicated in the Scottish scheme than in the English. Part of the reason is the presence of the smallholding and crofting position in Scotland. But there is also the need to provide specifically for the making of an


application because of the later provision in paragraph 7(c) which allows the joint application of crofters and so on.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question whether we want to encourage the use of the £12 grant. The kernel of the question was whether the grant is sufficient and one or two other Members, including the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) also asked this. It is interesting to look at some of the figures. There has been a considerable improvement in efficiency, and because of this contractors' charges have not risen very significantly since 1952, when it was introduced. We estimated for the United Kingdom as a whole there has been an increase of about 24 per cent. Under the 1966 scheme over 80 per cent. of the approved acreage in the United Kingdom attracted grants in excess of half the estimated cost of the operation. Even more interesting perhaps, is that in about 68 per cent. of the work done in Scotland the actual cost to the farmer after offsetting the grant was about £8 an acre. There is no evidence that the small farmer is put at a disadvantage.

Mr. Peter Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that since 1952 the costs of this operation have only gone up by 22 or 24 per cent? He should look at the figure again.

Mr. Buchan: We have the advantage in the Department of looking up figures again before we are asked to do so, and that is the figure as far as we can assess it. It is because of increased efficiency and other factors. There is general acceptance that the grant is useful and there seems no indication that insufficient use is being made of it.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) raised general points, which it would be wrong of me to pursue now, as to whether this Scheme is likely to increase cultivation. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West made the point that the figures fluctuate and have not always increased. The land available for potential cultivation inevitably decreased in a sense, but to some extent this is compensated for. There has been fluctuation rather than a downward trend, and fluctuation is inevitable.
I take the point that we need to look specially at hill land because it is low land where the grant for development is mainly being taken. My hon. Friend asked for a new concept on land reclamation, but it would be out of order for me to pursue that question now. But he knows that I am always open to suggestions. It is worth repeating that there are, of course, other grants available, including those under the Hill Land Improvement Scheme and the Farm Improvement Scheme, and these, of course, also affect the situation to some extent.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) raised the question of the reclamation of hill land rather than land that perhaps was brought into cultivation before 1956. Again, it would be wrong for me to go into the whole question of reclamation, but I remind him that a number of interesting experiments are taking place, particularly in the Highlands and in his area.
One thing to keep in mind is that we estimate that, on average, it would take about 20 years for the condition of land previously covered by a scheme to deteriorate to such an extent that reclamation of it would meet the requirements of this scheme—that is to say, if the cost of carrying out the work was substantially higher than normal.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: My point was that any land reclaimed from the rough will deteriorate and go back to a state of nature after a period of years unless properly farmed. I wanted to be satisfied that there was no duplication in that respect if a grant was paid for reclaiming land 15 years ago and, because of bad husbandry, had gone back to bull rushes and whins.

Mr. Buchan: The technical requirement is grass prior to 1956. The land concerned would have to be in a very bad state of repair to qualify under this scheme.
The hon. Member for Torrington said that the real task is to ensure, through the advisory services, that a follow up takes place and the original reclamation becomes permanent.
I would not like to estimate how much land is left to cultivate. There must obviously be an "X" answer in so far as


improved methods will alter any assessment which might be made at present. The need for better classification remains a permanent headache. This is a difficult problem and the hon. Member will remember the difficulties in the past of defining marginal land. There has been a general acceptance of the Scheme and tonight it has been uncomplicated by the absence of Part I of the Grant.

Mr. Stodart: May I ask the Under-Secretary one thing about his statement, which obviously surprised my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and myself? He said that the costs had risen only by 25 per cent. Has the Under-Secretary investigated this figure fairly recently? I can recall putting ploughs on high steep ground. This was ploughing grant for forestry purposes. In the course of four years from 1964 up to the present time the cost of getting implements on to this land has risen by 40 per cent. I am, therefore, surprised to learn that from 1952 until today the figure has risen by only 25 per cent. Could the Under-Secretary say whether this figure is continuously scrutinised?

Mr. Buchan: This is an average figure. I have no doubt that in particular circumstances the cost of reclamation would be very much greater. The Scottish figure comes nearer to the point that the hon. Member has in mind. We found that in 1968 the cost to the farmer in Scotland after offsetting the grant was £8 an acre. This is a reasonable approximation of the cost. One can presume that there are more difficult areas. I understand that the figure of 24 per cent. is up to date. It is based on contractors' charges and it is a great tribute to farmers, including the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West and Torrington.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1968, [draft laid before the House 23rd April], approved.—[Mr. Buchan.]

AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS)

10.37 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) (Extension of Delivery Period) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.
This Scheme continues for a further year the fertiliser subsidy which the House has approved regularly since 1952. The amount of subsidy continues to be based upon the phosphoric acid and/or nitrogen content of the fertilisers. The amount which we expect to spend on this subsidy during the coming fertiliser year will be about £32½ million. This scale of contribution meets about 23 per cent. of the gross cost of those fertilisers on which subsidy is paid and offers a very big inducement to farmers to maintain and improve the productivity of their soil.
I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is listening, because farmers with special difficulties—in hill areas and the Scottish islands—can have this scale of contribution supplemented under other Schemes.
The years over which this subsidy has been available have been marked by a substantial growth in the use of fertilisers. Our estimates for the fertiliser year just ending show that farmers used almost twice the 830,000 tons of plant nutrients used in the first year of the Scheme.
There has been progress in other ways. Farmers now use new types of fertilisers and the trend towards the higher use of nitrogen continues. Over three-quarters of all plant nutrients in subsidised fertilisers are applied in the form of compounds. The concentration of nutrients in such fertilisers has gone up from under 27 per cent. 15 years ago to 42 per cent. today.
This is an important technological achievement because of the great saving it represents in the bulk which it is necessary to handle. The great majority of farmers realise the benefit which comes from the use of the right kind of fertilisers on their crops. It is encouraging


to see from the Survey on Fertiliser Practice in 1966 that on temporary grass the average application of nitrogen and phosphoric acid is approaching that for tillage. This is a tremendous advance when not so many years ago very few farmers put any fertiliser on their grass. But there is still room for greater application, especially on permanent grass, if farmers are to make the best use of it, and we are encouraging this by propaganda and advisory effort.
We have plenty of grounds for thinking—I know that there will be some pessimists among hon. Members opposite—that there will be no slackening in the demand for fertilisers, particularly of the nitrogenous varieties, and we are also confident that the fertiliser industry should have no difficulty in meeting demand.
I am sure that the House will agree that a high rate of fertiliser use is essential to productivity in farming, and I therefore ask the House to approve the Scheme.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the purpose of this Scheme, but I find it hard to welcome it, even though it makes no change from last year's position, in view of what has happened during the last year. However, before dealing with the events of the last year, I should like to ask two specific questions.
The hon. Gentleman will well remember my Questions about fertilisers. Under this Scheme, we are to pay out large sums of public money according to the analyses of individual fertilisers. A large margin of error is allowed by Statute in tolerances of the agreed analyses of these fertilisers. In general, these tolerances are 10 per cent. either way of the agreed analysis, with a maximum of 1·75 per cent. for any one nutrient.
This is much too wide. I have made the case before, and I will not weary the House with it again tonight, but it is an outdated way of allowing tolerances, and the time has come to bring them more into line with the law in other countries. I understand that a committee is now reviewing the situation and because of

that I have been fobbed off since I first raised this matter. I hope that we are now getting near the conclusion of this committee's work and that these tolerances will be tightened up.
The second matter is rather similar and the same committee is considering it. When public money is paid out for subsidies for nitrogenous fertilisers, it is essential that the source of the nitrogen should be stated. Some compounders, or fertiliser mixers, tend to use large amounts of urea as a source of nitrogen. This should be stated, for a case can be made for saying that urea is a less effective form of nitrogenous fertiliser than other forms.
These are two potential wastes of public funds, and I hope that we shall soon have legislation which will tighten up these loopholes, although I do not suggest for a second that our fertiliser manufacturers are in any way dishonest.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of fertiliser use and the effect of the fertiliser subsidy on the general management and productivity of our farms in general. We are all grateful for the assistance we get and which is shown by the excellent booklet "Fertiliser Statistics", put out each year by the Fertiliser Manufacturers Association.
Looking at this one comes to two conclusions. First, our arable crops generally are fairly well treated with fertiliser. Looking at the average use of nutrients on our farms for individual crops one feels that the average use of fertilisers on cereals is adequate. With cereal crops one is inclined to think that 51 units of nitrogen to the acre is a little low. When one considers that a great number of our cereal crops follow crops like sugar beet, which have sheep on them, this is a hidden introduction of nitrogen, which should be borne in mind.
It is on the grassland that there is the greatest scope for expansion. The figures emerging from this booklet show that there is still a serious situation. At present, only 75 per cent. of temporary grassland and only 46 per cent. of permanent grassland ever sees any nitrogenous fertiliser. The average nitrogen application is only 53 units per acre of nitrogen on temporary grassland and 25 per cent. on permanent grassland.
Anyone who knows about the possibilities of grassland management knows that these are rather low figures. The Minister said that everything was being done to encourage greater use of fertilisers on grassland through the advisory service, and so on. I hope that this will go on, with renewed pressure and vigour. It is through our grassland that we can probably make the greatest contribution to our balance of payments problem.
I began by saying that I found it difficult to welcome this Scheme, because of the very large increase in fertiliser prices over the last year. We have had three events which have bedevilled farmers in purchases of fertilisers, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not stress them more. First we had the Prices and Incomes Board report last year, which allowed a 6 per cent. rise in prices, mainly due to increased costs of raw materials. particularly sulphur. Secondly, we had the Suez situation, which again caused fertiliser prices to increase and finally, in November, we had the devaluation of the £, which again increased prices.
The effect of these events was acknowledged by the Government in the annual Price Review White Paper, in paragraph 51, where we were told:
The effect of increases in fertiliser prices in 1967–68 is to increase the farmers' costs by nearly £15 million in a full year.
This is what the Government have done. They have put up fertiliser prices to the farmer by £15 million. At the same time, this Scheme gives no extra help to the agricultural industry by way of subsidies, so that the whole of this extra cost has to be borne by the farmer. In the Price Review the guaranteed price of potatoes was put up by 7s. 6d. a ton and that of sugar beet by 3s. 6d. a ton. It must be quite clear and indisputable, that these increased prices will be totally swallowed up by increased costs of fertilisers.
What will be the effect on fertiliser usage in the next year? The Minister made great play of the fact that the fertiliser usage has gone up in the last year. When we look at the table in the Appendix of the Price Review, and at the estimated cost of Exchequer support to agriculture, page 38, one sees that from a forecast figure for fertiliser subsidy in 1967–68 of £32·4 million, it is estimated

that next year the figure will be £32 million.
Therefore, the conclusion is obvious: that the Government are actively condoning smaller usage of fertilisers in the current year. I ask the Minister to tell us whether this is the Government's policy, because it seems clear from the figures in the White Paper that fertiliser usage will drop this year.
What does this mean in terms of the National Plan—that much vaunted document which came out some years ago—about which we do not hear so much now? The National Plan, in paragraph 22 on page 140, tells us:
The Government are broadly in agreement with the additional requirements of fertilisers and feedingstuffs which the industry has estimated would be needed to promote the expansion of production that would be technically possible.
Therefore, on the one hand, one has the National Plan saying that the Government accept that more fertilisers must be used. Yet, on the other, this year in this Scheme we have the Government actively condoning smaller usage of fertilisers than in the past. I want to know whether this means that the National Plan has now been finally thrown overboard in regard to the agricultural sector. If the National Plan has not been thrown overboard, why have the Government departed so drastically from it and why are they not bringing before us tonight a Scheme which does not just continue last year's Fertiliser Scheme, but allows greater subsidies so that fertiliser usage can be made to increase again?
Again, I ask: how does this situation fit in with the Prime Minister's devaluation broadcast in which he said that special incentives will be provided for increased home production from our farms in future? How are we to get this increased import saving from our farms if the Government are trying to reduce the usage of fertilisers on our farms? It occurs to me that this situation is another example of the Government's failure to manage the affairs of our nation, and the affairs of the agricultural industry in particular.
As I have said, I find it very difficult to welcome this Scheme. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply. In the light of that we


shall then have to decide how we shall react.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I do not wish to make a speech, but I want to ask one question. Could the Minister inform us, when he replies to this short debate, what is the difference between the total tariffs and import duties charged on the constituent chemicals in agricultural fertilisers—nitrogen, phosphates, and so on—and the total amount that the Government have budgeted for under the Fertilisers Scheme for the coming year? I suspect that there is more import duty charged than is being handed back to the farmer in the form of fertiliser subsidy. I should like confirmation on that point.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: While we welcome this Scheme in the present agricultural situation, I look forward to the day when we shall no longer have these fertiliser subsidies, but the correct price for our produce. There is no hope of this ever coming into operation under the present Government, but I look for-ward to the day when there will be no more subsidies and we get the fair and full price for our produce.
Does the Minister believe that everything is being done to keep down the price of fertilisers? It is all very well giving these fertiliser subsidies year in, year out: but one wonders whether, without them, the price of fertilisers might come down.
The application of fertilisers is essential. The days of using muck have gone, and it is necessary to use an ever-increasing amount of fertilisers if we are to get the best out of the land. I was always taught that if someone put a penny into a chocolate machine he received chocolate. Farmers realise that if they want to increase their output they have to use fertilisers, and there is much that the Ministry can do to encourage their use.

Mr. James Davidson: Does not the hon. Gentleman use muck?

Mr. Mills: Yes, but muck is not the only thing that we ought to use. If we want increased output, we must use fertilisers.
If the Ministry and the Government mean business when they talk about dealing with the balance of payments problem, they must encourage the use of fertilisers to increase output from our farms. The intelligent use of fertilisers is essential. I do not believe that the maximum increase in output will be achieved unless we increase confidence and profitability in the industry. It is only when that state of affairs exists that farmers will start to take advantage of these subsidies. It is only by making greater use of fertilisers that farmers can help to solve the problem of imports. I hope that the Minister realises that.
I welcome the Scheme, but I look forward to the time when there are no subsidies and farmers get a fair price for their produce which will make farming profitable. That could come about if the Government were prepared to change their whole outlook.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on the way in which he spoke from the Front Bench. I congratulate him, too, for doing what we have become accustomed to expect him to do on occasions such as this.
I appreciate what the Minister said. He was dealing with the use of fertilisers in the past. I congratulate the agriculture industry—and the Government for the help which they have given—on the technological improvements which it has made over the years. My hon. Friend was particularly constructive when he was considering how the Scheme would affect efficiency and technological advance, and I think that that is how we should consider it.
The statistics published by the Fertiliser Manufacturers Association Ltd. are particularly valuable. Some of the most interesting tables in the Association's Report are those which relate to the fertiliser practice surveys which have been conducted by the N.A.A.S. in England and Wales. Have similar surveys been carried out in Scotland? If they have been, what information did they produce?
One of the most interesting features of the Report is the tremendously wide regional variation in the use of fertilisers in England. Does the same hold good for


Scotland? On page 22 the Report draws attention to the low rate of usage of nitrogen and potash in Wales in relation to phosphate, and the higher proportion of nitrogen in relation to phosphate and potash in the eastern part of the country as opposed to the west and north on both cereals and grassland.
This raises the question whether we ought to put some variation into this Scheme to take account of these different usages.

Mr. Peter Mills: Surely my hon Friend would realise that probably the answer to this is that in certain areas of this country farming is more profitable, and that farmers are able to use more fertiliser and take advantage of it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Of course I appreciate this point, but I was interested to know whether the Under-Secretary did. This is a serious point, because we want these fertilisers used much more widely, and I should like to hear what comment the hon. Gentleman has on it.
I should like to turn to what is, I think, the most important point in this debate. That is to ask what thought the Government have given towards increasing fertiliser usage in the future, and particularly towards stepping up home food production?
As the Under-Secretary said at the beginning of the debate, there is a tremendous potential for increasing fertiliser usage. This is particularly true on grassland in relation to livestock production. I know, coming from Scotland, that it is in livestock production that this country has its greatest potential for saving food imports from overseas.
We always have dairymen held up to us as an example of one section of the industry where the use of fertiliser has been carried further than anywhere else, but is it being carried far enough and should not still more encouragement be given? Hon. Members in the Select Committee on Agriculture have been greatly helped by information given to us in papers by I.C.I. and Fisons on the use of fertilisers.
Where one takes dairy farms recorded by I.C.I. and the rate of nitrogen applied per acre, and looks at the best 10 farms in the survey, one finds a rate of appli-

cation of 214 units per acre with a gross margin of £108 for each cow with an income per acre of £48·3. When one compares that on the best 10 farms with the national average of 45 units per acre as against 214, a gross margin of £73 as compared with £108, and income per acre of just over £15 as against £48·3, one realises what a tremendous potential there is for increasing fertiliser usage in our farms.
Dairying fertiliser can be carried further, but the greatest potential is in beef production. The Ministry of Agriculture provided us in the Committee with an interesting paper on the greater use of production of beef from grass. It showed that on experimental husbandry farms run by the industry, the increase one got for every £ spent on nitrogen was £2 in cash from the increased weight of the cattle. This again shows, as the Ministry itself has demonstrated, that there is a tremendous potential so far as beef production is concerned by improving our usage of fertiliser on grassland.
If this work that I.C.I. has been doing, and that the Ministry itself has done on experimental farms, is to be applied on a much more national scale than it is at the moment, is the Ministry really prepared to give the advice and the financial incentives, through Schemes like this, which will lead to as big an increase in production as possible?
In the paper by Fisons it is estimated that by 1972–73, that is over the next five years, agriculture could save something like £200 million in imports of food from overseas. This is a very similar figure to that mentioned in the National Plan, and I hope we shall have a reply to questions asked by the hon. Member for Westmorland about the National Plan. There the figure was also £200 million, although over a slightly different period.
Fisons estimated that if we were to get this saving of £200 in livestock products imported from overseas it would mean additional imports of raw material and fertiliser of something like £8 million a year. This means an average rate of increase of fertiliser of about 7·3 per cent. compared with the average rate over the last 10 years of 5·1 per cent.
Therefore, if we are to see the increase in production that there was under


the National Plan, if we are going to see the expansion of agriculture which we all want, what is the Government's own estimate of the increased use of fertiliser that is necessary? Do they feel that this Scheme that they are asking us to approve is adequate to obtain this increased use of fertiliser which is believed necessary if we are to see an increase in food production? Do the Ministry have this kind of aim in view? If they do not, what is their aim? If they do have the same aim, do they agree that these figures put forward by firms like Fisons are sensible and reasonable targets which are worth aiming at?
If these targets are right—I think they are—then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland said, the rates of subsidy that the Minister is asking us to approve are not necessarily adequate to achieve this increase in food production at home. I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will clarify the Government's thinking on future fertiliser usage.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: My hon. Friends have stressed that each piece of evidence and every estimate given to the Select Committee on the prospects of British agricultural expansion into the 1970s turns on the increased use of fertiliser.
Broadly speaking, perhaps, 1½ million acres which are currently in grass might go into wheat and barley, but it is clear beyond any doubt that if that acreage is subtracted from the present acreage of grass, the output from the remaining acreage of grass must be substantially increased to feed the expanding numbers of livestock. Similarly, one will not get the yield of wheat and barley on land taken from grassland for cereals unless fertiliser is used.
Yet we have this curious disparity in use. It seems from looking at the figures that it is the arable districts that use the fertiliser and the grassland districts that lag behind. Even the temporary grass figures show that in arable districts grassland is being given twice the fertiliser that is given in the purely grassland areas. I wonder why this is so, bearing in mind that the most ominous part of this year's Price Review is the expected increase in fertiliser costs. They are very substantial. It is estimated that

it will be £14 million for all products and £11 million for Review products. In the previous years 1954–67 the pluses and the minuses in rises and falls in fertiliser prices cancelled out.
This year the industry is facing this very large increase which one can only suppose will discourage the marginal usage of fertiliser. I am therefore asking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what he proposes to do to encourage greater use. Are the N.A.A.S. officers pushing it sufficiently high? What are the reasons for this curious failure to add the missing link into what should be profitable expansion?

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I always think that these are among the most important of the agricultural Orders, because the development of fertilisers has been one of the great contributors to the agricultural revolution of the past 15 years. It is a long time since there was only one concentrated fertiliser on the market, the wellknown 12.12.15, which was called the I.C.I. No. 1, although there were, in fact, no others.
Fertiliser concentrates are getting stronger and stronger. Nitrogen is even stronger with the development of nitram as opposed to nitro-chalk than it was two or three years ago, which means that there can be far more waste if it is not properly used. Whereas hundredweights an acre mattered four or five years ago, now pounds an acre can leave a considerable impression on a field if the highly concentrated fertiliser is misused.
Therefore, what advice is given by N.A.A.S. officers? Are they bending themselves to the important task of advising people on the importance of a good distributor for the fertiliser and of using the best balanced fertiliser for their particular land? To apply one in the ratio of 1½.1.1 when 1.1.1 should have been used can cost the public purse a great deal of money.
A very important point brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) is the reduction in the estimate for the year which lies ahead as compared with 1967–68. There is no reduction in the percentage rate of subsidy, so the only possible conclusion is


that the Government anticipate a reduction in the tonnage. That would be disastrous, because we are far from achieving, nationally, the optimum rates of fertiliser usage, and few farms have reached the optimum.
We are beginning to talk—but little more—of 100 units of nitrogen for wheat and 80, say, for barley, but I suspect that the average application for barley is much nearer 50 or 60. If that is to be reduced, either the advisory services are not doing their job, or farmers cannot take advantage of the advice because of the shortage of ready cash. I regret to say that I believe that on much land, apart from the highly farmed arable areas, one of the things on which farmers still tend to economise is fertilisers. This could knock into fragments what remains of the Government's National Plan. Very little of it survives today. If the Government expect a reduction in the use of fertilisers in the coming year, then they are themselves ringing the death knell on that lamentable project which they put forward a few years ago.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: When I spoke earlier I suggested that there were some pessimists on the benches opposite. I did not realise that they were all pessimists. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said he welcomed what he described as "the constructive speech" of his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), which I regarded as a most destructive speech. Indeed, it must have been one of the most stupid speeches the hon. Gentleman had ever made.

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Jopling rose——

Mr. Mackie: No. I have only just begun. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that farming is depressed he must be going about with his eyes closed. I have recently been touring farming areas, right up to the north of Scotland. Tomorrow I will be going to Pembroke-shire. I have never seen the industry doing more. This is confirmed by the number of applications we are receiving for new buildings and capital. The same can be said of the amount of fertiliser being used.

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Jopling rose——

Mr. Mackie: No. The hon. Gentleman made his speech and before giving way to him I intend to make the position clear. He does not appreciate what is going on.

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Jopling rose——

Mr. Mackie: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he was speaking. I will give way to him later, but first I want him to appreciate what is really going on. A great deal of capital is going into agriculture. Farmers have increased confidence. That is proved by the great increase in capital going into the industry. They would not have this confidence if we had not taken a number of important measures in recent years.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have used the fertiliser subsidy, which is only one part of our agricultural policy, to make debating points. This subsidy must be taken in conjunction with all the other things we have done and are doing. I will not list them—I would be out of order if I did—but much has been done by the Government in the last four years, with the result that farmers now have confidence; and the hon. Member for Westmorland has failed to realise this.

Mr. Jopling: When the hon. Gentleman reads the report of my remarks in tomorrow's HANSARD he will see that I did not say that the agricultural industry was depressed. Indeed, I think I said that the fertiliser usage on arable crops was running at a satisfactory level, although I mentioned that more could be done in this connection on grassland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to ride over the fact that his Department's figures suggest that in the coming year it is envisaged that the rate of fertiliser usage will fall. I find this lamentable. I trust that he will not persist in saying that I said that the industry is depressed, because I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. Mackie: When he reads the report of his speech, which I am sure was accurately recorded, the hon. Gentleman will see that he implied what I have said.

Mr. Jopling: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mackie: I am sorry if I am treading on the hon. Gentleman's toes. I appreciate that it must hurt.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite will consider all the factors involved, the whole


policy, they will see what is happening. Instead, they have concentrated on fertilizers and have created a mini-debate based on the fertiliser subsidy. I pointed out that this subsidy for the coming year would be about £32½1 million. In the Price Review it was put at £32 million, but that is because figures are rounded off in giving estimates, which is the normal method. The figure is about the same as last year, when it was £32·4 million. There has, therefore, not been a decrease in our estimate. Indeed, there is a slight increase and it is part of the encouragement we are giving to agriculture. It shows that there is likely to be an increased use of fertilisers, as there has been in the past.
As on previous occasions, the hon. Member for Westmorland raised the question of the analysis and the margin of error allowed. I accept that this margin exists, but the farmers are getting the best of the bargain. A committee is looking into the matter and I regret that it is taking so long. Having looked into it, I assure the House that the analysis shows that farmers generally come out of it well and get the best of the bargain.
On the question on the sources of nitrogen, I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Analysis of urea shows that in many cases it is just as good as other sources of nitrogen, and it is not necessary to mention it separately.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did many other hon. Members, what is theoretically the amount of fertiliser that one can put on to grassland to get the maximum production. I recently sat beside Dr. Woodford of the Grassland Research Station, and Dr. Smith. They took out their pencils, and on the back of the menu they showed me what could be done theoretically with an acre of grassland if one had an acre of grassland, with the right kind of water, the right kind of fertiliser and the right kind of management. I could not disagree on what could be done. But we must realise that all farmers are not like Stanley Morris of Westmorland, and other people I could mention. We have to take average farmers sitting down and working it out theoretically, and basing arguments on that will not take us very far.
Hon. Members have pressed the point of fertiliser usage going down. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), in his usual exaggerated language, said that the National Plan would be in ribbons. We had an increase of about eight points in production this year. This will go up next year, and the hon. Gentleman will find his ribbons are tightly tied up by the time I stand at the Box to put forward next year's Scheme.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) brought up the Liberal point about the amount of the tariffs. I would need a long time to give him all the answers. From Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. countries fertilisers come in duty-free. There are considerable tariffs on imports from other countries, but there is no duty on imports of Chilean nitrate, phosphate rock, or on potash. I have not the totals, but I am prepared to send figures to the hon. Member, and he can tie them up and put down a Question in due course.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) would like subsidies to be scrapped and the introduction of a levy system. I do not think that is within the scope of this debate. I see him nodding his head.

Mr. Peter Mills: It is very important.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of how much more could be done. The N.A.A.S. is going ahead, and we are giving advice all over the country. It is up to the farmers to take it.
I forget which hon. Member raised the point that it was only farmers who made a profit who used fertilizers. It is cause and effect. If farmers do not use fertilisers they do not make a profit. It is not the making of a profit that causes farmers to use fertilisers, but the other way round.
On the point of the fertiliser survey, this is done with the aid of the N.A.A.S., and I am afraid that in Scotland there is not the same co-ordination. There are three advisory services and there is no co-ordinated survey. This is something which I might put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in order to get a similar survey to the one done by N.A.A.S. in England. On some


occasions I have defended the Scottish system; on other occasions I have defended the English system. There are good points in both. This is a good system for English farmers and a bad one for Scottish farmers.
The hon. Member has also mentioned the wide variation in the regions. He knows as well as I do that in areas where there have been heavy applications of fertilisers in the past, particularly in arable areas, reserves have been built up, and sometimes there may be an easing off. In other areas a back-log has to be be made up. This applies to lime and phosphates rather than to nitrogen, but there are areas where it seems strange that more nitrogen is not used, particularly in the Pennines, where there is water to do the job. Again, this is a case of advice and education. The hon. Member went into considerable detail about what can be done and it was an interesting survey. Many of these estimates are theoretical. He mentioned Fisons; it is only fair to say that they have an interest in pointing out what can be done.
I emphasise that this fertiliser scheme is not the only thing the Government are doing for the industry. There is a mighty lot more which gives farming the confidence which I am sorry to know that hon. Members do not think it has. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) also pointed out how much can be done on grassland and emphasised the great rise in fertiliser costs. I agree. The hon. Member for Westmorland spoke of the 6 per cent. rise in prices overseas compared with two or three years ago, a matter for which neither this Government nor any British Government had any control. Those costs are recouped in the Price Review.

Mr. Peter Mills: No.

Mr. Mackie: It is no good saying "No", all these rises in costs are taken into account and are recouped. Farmers were left with just over £14 million of their increase in efficiency by the Review. The efficiency figure was introduced by the previous Government and has always been used since.

Mr. Stodart: Does the hon. Gentleman claim that the efficiency factor has not

been increased within the last few years much to the disapproval of the farming industry?

Mr. Mackie: It may be to the disapproval of the farmers, but it was in agreement with the National Farmers Union. The figure has increased from £25 million to £30 million and the Union agreed that that was perfectly right.
I have answered most of the points which have been raised. I am thoroughly convinced that farming will go on using fertilisers, that education and advice will improve and we shall get increased production. I agree that the main increase in production we can get is on permanent grassland. We are concentrating on this. I assure hon. Members that the National Plan will be carried out in spite of their pessimism.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) (Extension of Delivery Period) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.

IMPORT DUTIES (CINEMATOGRAPH FILM AND LIGHT OILS)

11.27 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 3) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 643), dated 22nd April, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.
The purpose of this Order is twofold. First, it reimposes import duties on some types of exposed cinematograph film within a general class from which duties were removed in 1965. Secondly, it makes a highly technical amendment to the definition of the term "light oils" for the purposes of the Import Duties Act, 1958.
I deal first with the question of films. The main object of the Import Duties (General) (No. 1) Order, 1965, was to eliminate the duties on 16 millimetre "reversal original" film. This is a film bearing positive prints, used to produce copies for projection but not in itself normally used for projection. Because it is difficult to distinguish reversal original from other types of positive film, that


Order defined the film more comprehensively as
film of a width of 16 millimetres, with double perforation but without sound track of any description.
As a result, both reversal original film and other types of film ready for projection became free of import duties. When the Order was made there was no evidence of any large trade in film of this type ready for projection.
Representations have, however, been made to the Board of Trade by U.K. film producers and processors that, since the duty was removed, there has, to their detriment, been a large increase in imports of a type of film covered by the present Order. This is silent cinematograph film, 16 millimetres wide, bearing two 8mm. frames alongside each other. Before being used for projection, it is split into two separate 8mm. films. It is commonly called "double 8" film and is mainly used for "home movies" after being slit on arrival in this country into two films which are only 8mm. wide. These imports are not reversal original film for which the 1965 free-listing was intended.
After considering these representations and the comments of other interested parties who responded to the Board of Trade's public advertisement of that case, the Board of Trade has concluded that it would be right to reimpose the duties on film of this type.
It was not the purpose of the 1965 Order to remove the duties from film which, with virtually no processing in this country, would be used for projection. If film 8 mm. wide is imported with a single 8 mm. frame on it, or 35 mm. film is imported with four 8 mm. frames across its width, it already attracts the rates of duty which the new Order reimposes on double-8 film. It is inconsistent that double-8 film should be duty-free.
These duty-free imports have been competing with 8 mm. cine film made in this country by British film producers and with 8 mm. prints made by British film laboratories, with a consequential loss to them of processing work. The increased use of 8 mm. film has called for capital outlay by United Kingdom laboratories, aid their investment has been put at risk by the growing volume of im-

ports. They are at a disadvantage as compared with their main foreign competitors—the Americans—who have a larger home market and lower raw material prices. The United Kingdom industry makes a worthwhile contribution to our foreign exchange earnings, and a general deterioration in their position could affect exports. Other major film producing countries—the United States of America and certain Common Market countries—levy import duties on this type of film, even though in America particularly their producers probably stand in far less need of protection.
In the light of all these considerations, the Order reimposes duties on such film. The full rate of duty will be 1d. per linear foot, but imports from the Commonwealth Preference Area will be charged at 2/9th d. per foot. Under the Kennedy Round Agreement, these duties will be reduced from 1st July to 0.85d. and 0.19d. per foot. Imports from the E.F.T.A. countries and the Irish Republic will continue to be duty-free. Its purpose is simply to reverse a part of the 1965 Order which has had consequences which were not then foreseen.
The Order also makes a small amendment to the Tariff to take account of a change in the definition of light hydrocarbon oils in the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. This definition was slightly modified by the Finance Act, 1967 to exclude certain kinds of oil from the light oil classification of duty for revenue purposes. This is a purely consequential amendment, to incorporate this modified definition in the United Kingdom tariff. The effect of this amendment upon import duty chargeable under the import Duties Act is insignificant. Although theoretically it could lead to a small increase in the protective duty chargeable on certain limited categories of goods containing hydrocarbon oils, this is most unlikely to happen in practice. It is, indeed, likely that there will be no change or even a small reduction in the protective duty charged.
The need to amend the tariff to reflect this revised revenue definition has provided an opportunity to introduce a definition by reference in such terms that no further amendment will be required if at any future time it should again prove necessary to modify the term "light oils"


for revenue purposes in the Customs and Excise Act.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I accept the Minister of State's statement that the part of the Order dealing with light oils is largely of a technical nature, and I have no points to make on what he said in that regard. I want to raise a few points on the other part of the Order which has as its purpose to reverse in part the Import Duties (General) (No. 1) Order, 1965. It is the Government's case that the primary intention of that Order was to remove duty on reversal original film which is suitable for producing copies but not suitable for projection itself. But, because of the difficulty of distinguishing this type of film from other types of positive film, the Order of 1965 removed the duty from all positive 16 mm. film with double perforation but without a sound track. As far as I can discover, the reason for the form that Order took has not previously been explained to the House. It was certainly not explained in the Explanatory Memorandum attached to it, but I fully accept the Minister's statement of the reasons.
The Minister added that certain interests which have been adversely affected claim that there have been increasing imports of double-8 positive film, and he said that this is mainly used for home movies. A key point is that it is imported in a form for use for projection without significant processing. This means that less work remains to be done by people employed in the industry in this country.
Can he give the House some figures about the growth in the domestic market for positive double-8 film since 1965? Can he say what percentage of the market was taken by imports in, say, 1964 and 1967? My second preliminary question relates to consultation. As the Minister said, the Board of Trade advertised that notice of the application for reimposition of the duty, and objections were received. Eventually the Department took the decision embodied in the Order. Obviously, it cannot reveal details about that applicants or the objectors, but I should like an assurance from the Minister that he feels that all the relevant

interests have been consulted and had an opportunity of expressing their views.
In general, I believe that any increase in tariffs or the restoration of tariffs should be looked at with a very jealous eye and is to be regretted, unless there are strong reasons. Such moves are contrary to the general trend towards lower tariffs in the world, which I welcome and which I think the country in general welcomes. An increase in tariffs increases costs to the consumer.
It is against that background that I should like to consider the reasons the Minister gave for the Government's action. I think that there are broadly four. The first is that it may encourage foreign film producers to allow copies of their films to be made by British laboratories, whose raw material costs are higher, thus providing employment for British processors. The second is that increasing duty-free imports are damaging to the interests of British producers. These are protectionist arguments. Why did not the Government foresee them when they made the 1965 Order, which is not very long ago? Should it not have been possible then to foresee the developments which have taken place and to take account of those arguments?
The third reason is that it was not the main purpose of the 1965 Order to remove the duty from films for immediate use for projection. If that is so, the question arises of why the Order was framed in such a way that it had that effect. The existence of double-8 film was known in 1965, although imports were not very great. Does this not show a lack of foresight by the Board of Trade at the time? Should it not have been possible for it to make the distinction that it is making now? One of the reasons for the comprehensiveness of the 1965 Order, I understood, was that it was felt to be difficult to distinguish reversible original film from other types of positive film, but a method of making that distinction has been found in this Order. Why should it not have been found at that time?
The fourth argument is that 8-mm prints of film of 16-mm are already dutiable. Much the same comments apply to that argument as those I have just deployed. In addition, were not 8-mm films dutiable in 1965? If that is so,


why was this not considered a good reason for retaining the duty on double-8 positive films?
Do all these points now show either lack of foresight in 1965 or a change of policy in a protectionist direction by the Government? I do not think this is a significant move towards protectionism but is an attempt to remedy something mistakenly done in 1965. If I am right in that, the Government must accept responsibility for the lack of foresight shown ar. that time.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Dell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not reading too much into this very small Order dealing with a relatively small point. He asked about the size of the United Kingdom market for 8-mm film. I cannot give him a figure for that or for the imports of 8-mm film because there is no individual category in the tariff which would show it. But the applicants estimate that imports are running at the rate of several hundreds of thousands of £s annually within the whole of the category.
We also know that imports in this category rose about 31 per cent. in 1967 as compared with 1964, and that, during that same period, the value of our imports from the United States, whence most of the double-8 film comes from, although European film is included, showed a substantial increase.
The substantially increased use of double-8 positive film in the last few years is partly due to technological developments in the projection of small film and partly because, since February, 1965, such film has entered duty free.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether all the relevant interests have been consulted and whether I am satisfied that due account has been taken of the representations made. I believe that all the relevant interests have been consulted and that the judgment represented in this Order is right. The hon. Member went on to say, and I agree, that the increase in tariffs should be looked at with a jealous eye. In this case there is an anomaly in

that double-8 film was, up to 2nd May duty free, whereas 35-mm. film with four 8-mm. frames serving the same purpose paid duty as did 8-mm. single-frame film.
The duties which are being restored merely bring double-8 mm film into line with what is in fact the same material. The duty will be reduced in the Kennedy Round.
If the hon. Member fears too much protectionism in the restoration of this duty I would be bound to point out that the United States of America protects its industry and the European Economic Community protects its industry at almost precisely the same level as we are proposing. It seems reasonable that our industry should have the protection that the American and European industries have.
The hon. Member suggested that an adequacy of foresight would have prevented us removing this duty in 1965 and in that case we would not have to restore it now. The hon. Member knows that we have a procedure in respect of these changes in duty. We advertise the intention and we take note of the representations which are made. The 1965 Order was advertised and no representations in respect of double-8 mm film were received. The people who have made representations to us now on this subject say that they did not see the advertisement and if they had they would have objected. In fact we went through the procedure and received no objections.
There is also the point about technological developments which have probably increased the use of double-8 film. If the applicants had made representations at the time, they would have been considered and it may be that a different definition would have been used in 1965. However, we are taking this opportunity of correcting a mistake made in 1965.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 3) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 643), dated 22nd April 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.

LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSES, MANCHESTER (SALE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The issue of whether to sell council houses has aroused strong feelings in the City of Manchester. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government can be in no doubt of this after his encounter with the deputation I took to see him at the Ministry in April. He will certainly recall the strength of feeling expressed by the recent ex-chairman of Manchester's Housing Committee, Councillor Mrs. 'Winifred Smith; by Councillor Dr. Michael Taylor and by two respected trade unionists from Manchester, Mr. Griffiths Berry and Mr. Keith Roberts. I know that he will recall the emphasis which they and others have placed on seeing this issue as one, not of party tactics, but of important political principle.
My hon. Friend will be aware, from my recent correspondence with him, that the Conservative majority on the Manchester City Council is not only pressing ahead with its scheme for the sale of council houses, but is now claiming that the scheme does not run counter to the advice given by the Minister when renewing his general consent in Circular 24/67. This Circular, under the heading "Housing Acts: Sale of Council Houses" and dated 20th March, 1967, informed the local housing authorities of the Minister's view that:
'…in areas where there is still an unsatisfied demand for houses to let at moderate rents, they should not sell their existing houses except where there are special reasons in the case of a particular property. To do so would postpone; the time when an adequate supply of rented housing becomes available; and could mean that families on the waiting list, who are among the most inadequately housed, would have to wait longer for a vacancy.
If this advice does not apply to the City of Manchester perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me if there is anywhere in the country to which it does apply.
In Manchester there is a desperate shortage of houses to let at moderate

rents. There are now 13,536 families on the city's housing waiting list, all too many of whom have been waiting for years for a home of their own. As my hon. Friend must know, there is also an acute shortage of land for the building of houses in Manchester and there has been pressure over many years for overspill sites outside the city.
Moreover, the city suffered much more than most others from the hard-faced and grasping landlordism of the past. The legacy of this is such that the estimate of dwellings unfit for human habitation has to be reckoned in tens of thousands. Most of these dwellings are occupied by decent, hard-working people whose need now, as in the foreseeable future, will be for houses to let at moderate rents.
It is first against this background that I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on the Manchester Conservatives' claim that their scheme does not run counter to the advice given by the Minister in Circular 24/67. In considering his reply, perhaps he will also note that the sale of council houses is but one facet of the Manchester Conservatives' housing policy. To their utter shame, and acting unworthily of the reputation of a great city, they have slowed down Manchester's slum clearance programme and cut the building of new homes.
My hon. Friend will recall that Circular 24/67 went on to say:
…the sale of a substantial number of the older houses and their replacement by new houses to let could have the effect of unnecessarily increasing the rents of the remaining houses or of putting extra charges on the general ratepayers, or both. Local authority tenants who wish to move to a private house can be given every encouragement and assistance to do so. The authority can then relet to a family in need.
This passage in the circular recognises the financial folly of selling existing, cheaply-built houses and building new and more expensive houses in their place. The price received for an old house will never be enough to build a new one, least of all in an area of desperate housing shortage. The effect of selling council houses must, therefore, be to increase the rents of the authority's remaining tenants. This consequence of the policy of selling council houses is causing serious concern among enlightened and informed opinion in Manchester.
My hon. Friend knows how warmly I have welcomed both the record levels of new house building under the present Government and the dramatic increase in housing subsidies. In 1967–68, the housing subsidies paid to Manchester, £1,744,004, were almost twice as generous as those allowed by the Conservative Government in 1961–62, £927,808. The difference in approach is even more marked when one compares the housing subsidies paid to the city during the first three years of Labour Government, £4,703,475, with those paid during the last three years of Conservative Government, £3,005,203.
But the Conservative majority on the Manchester City Council has been moving in an opposite direction to the Labour Government. While we have been increasing housing subsidies, the local Conservatives have shown their deep antipathy for council house tenants by freezing the rate subsidy. As my hon. Friend will agree, the support given to the housing revenue account from the rates is a town planning subsidy and not a rent subsidy. The city's slum areas must be cleared, and an increasing share of the cost of this tremendous burden will now have to be borne by Manchester's council house tenants. Many thousands of these tenants once lived in the city's slum clearance areas. This is, therefore, a case of the victims now being made to pay for the crime. This added burden alone will mean substantial and totally unjustified rent increases.
In addition, if the selling of council houses has the effect on rents which the Minister foresaw in Circular 24/67, then the anger of Manchester's remaining council house tenants could become extremely difficult to contain. My hon. Friend will have been able to judge the temper of Labour opinion in Manchester about rents from the information that I have given him on certain action taken last Friday by Alderman Sir Robert Thomas, the leader of the Labour group on the Manchester City Council. He may also wish to know that I have been approached in recent days by some highly responsible citizens of Manchester, including men who have given long and distinguished service on the City Council, who would be prepared to lead a rent strike if the Conservative majority at Manchester Town Hall is allowed to defy

Government policy by unnecessarily increasing rents.
I must make it very clear that these people regard Circular 24/67 as a statement of Govenment policy, which has the intention, among others, of preventing avoidable increases in council house rents. It would be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that it is still the Minister's view that the sale of council houses can result in unnecessary rent increases. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend can also say whether he agrees with me that the need to prevent such increases is of even greater importance now than it was when the Circular was issued on 20th March, 1967. There is one further statement in the Circular to which I wish to refer. Paragraph 4 argues:
The principal consideration is that the sale of existing council houses reduces the stock of houses that can be let at moderate rents. Most authorities find that they are able to re-let between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. of their houses each year as vacancies occur. In the big cities and towns there is also a continuing demand among tenants for transfers and exchanges—e.g. as tenants change their place of work or want to move to a larger or smaller house as their family commitments change. Any reduction in the stock of rented houses both reduces the chances of families on the waiting list and restricts the opportunities for transfer and exchange among tenants. Thus a valuable element of flexibility in the management of the council's housing stock is diminished.
Day after day, throughout the years that I have been active in the public life of Wythenshawe, for nine years as Labour's candidate and for four years since then as the Member of Parliament, I have been asked to help countless families living in blocks of flats, to transfer to homes with gardens. For the most part, they have been families with young children and elderly or sick people, who were no longer able to climb several flights of stairs. For a number of years I lived in one of the council's blocks of flats and I know, from first-hand experience, the stresses and strains which arise in families with young children. There are very few problems which cause me deeper concern today.
For many parents there is nothing more heartbreaking than the prospect of their children spending the whole of their childhood in a block flat. The human problems, especially for young mothers,


have to be endured really to be understood. Instead of having their younger children always under their feet, as our Manchester saying goes, or playing on the stairways, or passageways of flats, there are thousands of mothers in my constituency who would like their children, even in winter, to be able to play safely just outside the home, where, in Shelley's words:
The warm sun is failing,
the bleak wind is wailing,
The bare boughs are sighing,
The pale flowers are dying.
There are now 9,122 families on the city's housing transfer list, everyone of them with some human problem awaiting a solution by public authority. This figure is more than 3,000 above that for 1961 and a high proportion of those awaiting transfers are young families urgently seeking to move from flats to houses. I should appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary will comment on this aspect of the city's housing problem and if he will say whether it is still the Minister's view that:
…any—
and I emphasise the word "any"—
…reduction in the stock of rented houses…
will reduce the opportunities for transfer and exchange of the tenants of Manchester Corporation, now living in blocks of flats.
I come now to some of the more general considerations involved in the sale of council houses in Manchester. The issue is not whether people should own their own homes. By pretending that this is the issue, the Conservative party is merely trying to throw dust in the eyes of working people. There are, fortunately, some Manchester Conservatives who have been prepared to let the cat out of the bag and admit that this is not really the issue. One of them, Alderman Sir Richard Harper, the Chairman of the Housing Committee, has publicly conceded that the Labour Government
…are bending over backwards to geteasier mortgages so that more people can own their own homes.
Without in any way endangering the stock of houses to rent in areas of housing shortage, the Labour Government's option mortgage scheme now

brings home ownership within the reach of more people than ever before. I pay the warmest possible tribute to my right hon. Friend and his predecessor for their important work in this sphere.
The real issue at stake in the sale of council houses, in Manchester as in other areas of acute housing shortage, is whether houses paid for out of public funds should at any time be sold or re-sold for private gain and to the detriment of families in the greatest need. But who can deny that this is what will happen in Manchester? After a period of time, anyone reselling a council house would not have to sell it back to the local authority or to the family in the greatest need. On the contrary, there could be queue-jumping. The house could be sold to someone well down the waiting list, or even to someone who was not on the list. In fact, it would most probably be sold to the highest bidder, whoever he was, and quite regardless of his need compared with that of the families on the waiting list. This would inevitably cause very bitter feeling among families on the housing waiting list and those awaiting transfers. Young married couples with children, now living with in-laws, would be passed over. So would the family who have lived for many years in a block flat in the hope of a transfer one day to a house.
My hon. Friend will recall that there was a great national outcry about the T.V. play "Cathy Come Home." For Cathy it had to be a house to rent or nothing, since she had no prospect of buying a house. I must emphasise to my hon. Friend that if the sale of council houses in Manchester were to mean that one Cathy had to wait a day longer for a home of her own, there would be very widespread and bitter and justifiable condemnation of the policy which allowed it to happen.
To sell a council house is to dispose of a home which can be offered to the needy when it becomes vacant, when the tenant goes away or buys on the private market. The sale of council houses reduces the already inadequate assets of the public system, and there are very few places where these assets are more inadequate than in Manchester. For this reason alone, which has been fully documented by the disturbing figures I have


given the House tonight, I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will speak in the strongest possible criticism of the policy now being pursued by the Conservative majority on the Manchester City Council. I trust that he will also endorse my view that, in the circumstances of Manchester's desperate housing shortage, their policy is not only socially unjust, but also impermissible.
I am, of course, familiar with the argument that this aspect of Conservative housing policy was intended only as an electoral gimmick; that it has proved a huge and expensive flop in areas where it is already in operation; and that it is not for the Government to save their opponents from the consequences of their own folly. Certainly the selling of council houses has flopped very badly in Greater London. I am informed that of the first list of 13,735 tenants who were offered the chance of buying their council houses only 400 said that they were still interested after preliminary inquiries had been made, and that the number of actual sales is derisory. One calculation I saw during last year showed that the G.L.C.'s offer would mean paying an increase of £3 3s. 2d. a week for living in the same house—from £4 4s. 6d. to £7 7s. 8d. Nor was this increase of £3 3s. 2d. the highest. It was a concessionary one for those who, having lived in their council houses for the past 18 years, felt that they had already paid for them in rent.
There are those who feel strongly that the real intention of Conservative policy is to popularise the sale of council houses by imposing even further increases in rents. But the "concessionary" offer to G.L.C. tenants shows why Londoners are rejecting this aspect of Conservative housing policy as a bad joke. Against the background of our extremely serious housing problem in the City of Manchester, I feel sure that most reasonable people would take the view that the sale of council houses there would also be a joke in very bad taste.

12.6 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I disagree with very little of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred

Morris). I think that one has to get the picture into perspective. Since 1960, which is when we began returns for the sale of council houses, on average 2,600 houses have been sold per annum. That sounds a lot, but it has to be compared with a stock of 4 million houses. The average increase every year has been 160,000. The loss is a small amount in comparison.
My hon. Friend gave what he thought were the main objections to the sale of council houses in places of great housing need, and I agree with him. Where there is an unsatisfied demand for houses to let, it is essential, if we are to avoid in other towns the horrors which the Milner Holland Report exposed in London, that we increase the supply of houses to let. As my hon. Friend said, we have to watch the effect on rents if the supply goes down. If we sell off the cheaper houses and have to replace them with more expensive ones, this is bound to have a bad effect on rents.
I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend does not take the view that because the Prices and Incomes Board said that rent increases should be phased, and that the increases should be kept down to 7s. 6d. a year, that means that that can be done and no questions will be asked. That has to be regarded as a maximum, and my right hon. Friend is most anxious that local authorities should not raise rents when it is not necessary to do so.
My hon. Friend mentioned re-lets. These are essential for helping general housing need. My hon. Friend referred to Cathy. That is the kind of case that will not be helped by buying, nor will it be helped by getting a new house immediately. The "Cathys" depend on re-lets being available for rehousing, and good housing management means having a pool of re-lets if there is to be the necessary flexibility.
To sell centrally placed houses and then to search for land for overspill to replace homes sold in the centre of towns is pretty improvident and will not be popular with one's neighbours. If someone goes around Cheshire and Lancashire—or any other part of the country—saying that he must have land for rehousing to enable him to clear slums, he will find it difficult to defend his attitude if it is known that he has been selling


cheap houses in the centre of the City. Manchester has thousands of slums which have to be cleared. In addition, as my hon. Friend has said, there is a long waiting list and a great need for rented houses.
I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is not shutting his eyes to what is going on. He has not made a decision about waiving the general consent and doing nothing about it. He receives regular monthly reports, and is watching very carefully what is happening.
As my hon. Friend said, there is owner-occupation and we have done a tremendous lot for it, and nobody—I think particularly the private builders—would take kindly to the sale of council houses to the kind of people who could become owner-occupiers if they wanted to. The builders say it upsets their programmes if they have got this competition. I think that there has been this change of emphasis. This originally was meant to be a tremendous move of social revolution which was going to make owner-occupiers out of council tenants.
With the very small results that have come from this activity, and all the effort that has been made, there is much more talk to the effect that it does not matter how many houses one actually sells as long as people have an opportunity to buy if they want to. I think that is probably a rearguard action. It is true that probably this year there may be some increase, as the previous arrangements gather momentum. Last year, the number of houses sold was 3,138. That was lower than in 1966, when the number

was 3,788, and after the initial flush of sales which comes after houses are first offered for sale, demand dies down.
It has always seemed likely that the total number of sales would increase as some of the larger authorities began to offer houses for sale. My right hon. Friend has kept the situation under close review and, while the number of sales may increase this year, there is nothing to suggest that overall this would represent a significant reduction in the total local authority stock of well over 4 million houses. But if the rate of sales in particular areas of housing need were to increase sharply, my right hon. Friend would certainly consider using his powers to withdraw the general consent and to reissue it in a more restricted form, possibly excluding altogether authorities in areas of continuing housing shortage.
The case for doing so will have to be judged in the light of the general trend in sales.
I would say to my hon. Friend that I have no quarrel with the criticism he has made of the policy. My right hon. Friend has said that again and again, and made his position clear. But his position up until now has been that he does not want to use a steamhammer to crack a nut, and unnecessarily interfere with the autonomy of local authorities. But if they cannot be relied upon to act responsibly, my right hon. Friend may have to have another look at the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.